In the traditional Human physics (HP), the space, time and mass are perceived intuitively with the operational definitions. In this Axiomatic physics (AP), they are defined axiomatically, far removed from our intuition.
1. “Time” is defined as a quantum with 4-dimensions {+/- t, +/- it}, and it has the following attributes.
a. It is a supersymmetry (of course, completely different from the SUSY theories). This time-supersymmetry encompasses two copies of the universe (the real-time universe and the imaginary-time universe).
b. This time-supersymmetry is expressed with a parameter, the spin = (1/2) h-bar. See the article “The Real-Ghost (RG) symmetry, http://www.prequark.org/Mphy.htm#Real “. In fact, the Higgs-mechanism is the shadow of this Real-Ghost flip-flop mechanism.
2. “Space” is defined as the “traits” of “time” and having 64 dimensions (states); 48 of those dimensions are expressed as the specetime elementary particles while the other 16 are pure vacuum. Of course, the macro-expression of “space” is the traditional three-spatial dimensions.
3. “Mass” is defined as the “inner” spacetime structure of the “spin” of a wave-packet with a given wavelength. That is, even the “spacetime” itself has mass in this definition, and this will be a part of the reason for the dark matter. That is, the “mass” of a wave-packet is the result of it being flip-flop between the two copies of the universes, the RG symmetry (see the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge, http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm “).
4. “Electric charge” is defined as the measuring ruler (made of the “span” times the light speed) for the universe, and it defines the “causal” event horizon.
While the definitions of an axiom-system can be arbitrary, the purpose of this AP is to reproduce the Nature physics (NP). And, the traditional Human physics (HP) has discovered many facts about NP. Thus, this AP must try to make contact with those NP facts.
Yet, as of today, the traditional HP does not understand the physics meaning of “mass” much beyond its operational definition. Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in physics) said last month, “Successful as the Standard Model has been, it is clearly not the end of the story. For one thing, the masses of the quarks and leptons in this theory have so far had to be derived from experiment, rather than deduced from some fundamental principle.” And, the LHC is trying to test the Higgs mechanism.
However, there is one and only one HP parameter which does link to “mass”, and it is the Weinberg angle. But, it is a free parameter in the HP. Thus, if we can “derive” the value of this Weinberg angle axiomatically in this AP, then we have made one contact with the Nature physics. In fact, I have shown this calculation many times (see the article “Higgs boson, a bad idea, part four, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-four.html ). However, I will write the equations down here for the convenience. For the detailed reasons of the calculation, please go to the link above.
A. In this AP, there is an innate angle A(0) [related to the spin of this AP], and
A (0) = {(360/2pi) * [(pi/64 + (pi/64) ^ 2 + (pi/64)^3 + ... ]/2]}
= 1.4788413 degrees.
B. With A(0), we can get A(1),
A(1) = [360 - 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.521159 degrees.
C. With A (1), we get A(2),
A(2) = (2 * [360 - A(1) - A(0)]/24) = 28.75 degree.
In this AP, I do call A(1) as the Cabibbo angle and the A(2) as the Weinberg angle for the reason that A(1) and A(2) are, indeed, the mixing angles for determining the weak boson’s mass. Thus, those two angles are no longer the free parameters but are “derived” axiomatically. Yet, the good story does not stop here. The mysterious value of Alpha (Fine structure constant) is also easily derived in this AP, as below.
Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)
= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …) = 137.0408704 …
The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + ...+(1/n)(1/64)^n +...] = .00065737 + …
There is a 0.0036% difference between this theoretical number from the measured value (currently is 137.0359 …). Yet, in this AP, the derived number preempts all other values. That is, no other means can challenge an axiomatically derived number. Yet, by having a small difference between this AP number from the measured value, there must be another effect at work. In this case, the A(2) =28.75 degrees is calculated with the universe having the zero mass while it is not the case for the current universe. That is, it could be compressed a bit (to a smaller value of 28.743 degrees) after the universe gained its mass. So, while this AP Alpha is a true constant, the measured Alpha does evolve with the life of the universe. The Alpha for the old galaxies must be slightly different from the younger ones. Thus, this difference can be a way to estimate the mass of the current universe.
By all means, this AP has provided an axiomatical calculation for the mystical value of Alpha. That is, the AP has made another contact with the Nature physics.
In conclusion, not only has this AP showed a new physics but also a revolutionary physics epistemology.
The above equations used the numbers {64, 48, 24}. They are not arbitrary numbers but are the vital numbers of this AP (see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles”, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html ). That is, the physics which gives rise to elementary particles also gives rise to these parameters, the Cabibbo / Weinberg angles and the Alpha.The internal consistency of this AP is, thus, maintained.
Yet, why (pi/64)? Why A(0) is calculated with the formula as it is, not otherwise? If this AP cannot explain these questions, all above equations are simply some numerological formulas. Well, I will discuss these in a future post. In the next post, I will discuss the issue of dark matter first.
No comments:
Post a Comment