Thursday, April 25, 2013

Litmus test for the final physics

In the CERN news release of March 14, 2013, it stated, “… ‘indicates’ … that the new particle is looking more and more ‘like’ a Higgs boson, …”.  Semantically, CERN is saying, “… not knowing what the heck this new particle truly is, …”. Now, we are all waiting for more data after CERN comes back in business in 2015. However, there is a “Litmus test” for the correct particle theory, to determine what “the” fundamental among all physics entities is. And, it must consist of four parts.

a. A set of basic physics entities, the b-entities (such as, time, space, spin, etc.).

b. A set of emerging mechanisms (pulling out the b-entities from a fundamental) to set the fundamental/emergent system.

c. A set of derived theorems from this fundamental/emergent system, such as the Alpha, the Neff, etc. .

d. This set of derived theorems must make contact with the known universe.

That is, for an arbitrary selected particle theory, we should perform the following tests.
i. What is the set of b-entities? For example, the theory S has [time, space, spin (ħ),  electric charge (e), mass charge (m)] as its b-entities.

ii. What is the set of emerging mechanisms [(the fundamental/emergent system) with some functions (f)]? Let them be the followings.
     1. e (electric charge) = f (ħc), c is the light speed. Thus, e is the emergent of ħ, c.

     2. m (mass charge) = f (ħ/c), m is also the emergent of  ħ, c. See

     3. c (light speed) = f (space/time), c is the emergent of space, time.

     4. ħ = f (angle/time),  ħ is the emergent of angle, time.

The above functions clearly defined a set of emerging mechanisms and a system of fundamental/emergent. The only fundamentals remaining in the above system is [space, angle, and time]. As the angle is only a subset of the space, the fundamentals can be further reduced to as [time and space].  Since space has an internal structure while the time is thus far an indivisible entity, I would select the “time” as the true and the only fundamental, and let the space as,

iii. With this choice, it should derive a set of theorems, such as the 5 below.

    1.  Both  Cabibbo angle (θabout 13 degrees) and the Weinberg angle (θfrom 28 to 30 degrees) are the two key parameters in the Standard Model (SM). These two should be the first criterion for a correct particle theory, that is, they both must be “derived” by a correct particle theory. Of course, the Standard Model fails on this task (criterion), as they are only the “Free” parameters in SM.

    2. The Alpha (α, electron fine structure constant) should be the second criterion. Alpha is the “lock” for the universe, as it locks three measuring rulers (ħ, the spin charge; e, electric charge; c, light speed) of the universe into a constant relationship. When these three rulers are locked, the universe is allowed to roam free with its evolution. Thus, this Alpha, as “the” most important lock/key for the universe, must be “derived (directly calculated)” in a correct particle theory. Of course, Standard Model again fails on this task (criterion).

Note: C (light speed) is also a lock which locks the (space/time) into a fixed relation. So, space and time can be set free. Yet, the Alpha is the final lock.

    3. That the expansion of the universe is accelerating is now a “Fact”. This fact should be the direct consequence of a correct particle theory. Again, SM fails on this criterion.

    4. The Planck data showed three key features of this universe.

       a. With the Planck data (dark energy = 69.2;  dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82) and the AMS02 data, the dark matter and the dark energy mysteries are no more. Again, the “Standard Model proper” cannot make any linkage to this issue. Its baby (SUSY) is making some wild guess without the ability to match with this Planck data. Yet, the entire Planck data can be *predicted*  with a correct particle theory which consists of two sub-models (the pimple model and an iceberg model).

For dark matter, with the Pimple model (that is, every particles carry the same mass-charge, see  ), there are 48 matter particles (matter + anti-matter) while only 7 of them [the first generation matter (not anti-matter)] gives out lights (excluding e-neutrino). Thus, the dark mass/visible mass ratio = [41 (100 – w)% / 7] . The *w* is the percentage of the dark matter which does give out lights. According to the AMS02 data, it is between 8 to 10%. By choosing w = 9, the d/v ratio = 5.33 (while the Planck data shows d/v ratio = 25.8/4.82 = 5.3526). Details, (see  ).  

For dark energy, it uses an iceberg model (see ). That is, the Time, Space and Mass (dark + visible) form an iceberg system, while the mass is the iceberg. And, they three take the *equal* share. So, the dark mass = [(33.3 – 4.82) x (100 -9)%] =  25.91 (while the Planck data is 25.8), with d/v ratio = 5.37.  The 9% here is the melting ratio from the dark matter. Thus, the dark energy = 66.66 + [(33.3 – 4.82) x  9%] = 66.66 + 2.56 = 69.22 (while the Planck data is 69.2).

One interesting thing here, the dark/visible ratio was calculated with two different pathways. Yet, the average [(5.33 + 5.375)/2] = 5.3527, exactly the same as the Planck data.

With these calculations, the Nature is too simple than we can ever imagine. Yet, numbers are numbers, and there is no debate-point for these calculations.

       b. Neff is 3. What the number for Neff should be? This must be directly “derived (calculated)” in the correct theory. The Standard Model fails on this again as the Neff = 3 is the gadget data (fact) for SM but is not calculated (theoretical) result.

        c. Dr. Guth’s inflationary scenario is consistent with the data. Again, the inflation is not the direct “consequence” of the Standard Model, and it must be an add-on. The physics meaning for inflation is topological, the universe is a topological plane instead of a topological sphere. The Standard Model cannot even address this topological issue.

    5. Neutrino oscillation is again a physics “Fact” now. The Standard Model has no slightest clue to explain this. Yet, all physicists happily brush this cruel fact away, delinked it in order to preserve the greatness of the SM.  With “energy” rule, the particle “decays” to a lower energy state. On the contrary, the neutrino can “decay upward” to become a heavier neutrino. Obviously, “decay upward” is not truly a decay in linguistic sense. So, it is called “oscillation”. Thus, neutrino demands a new physics, in addition to the “energy” rule. This oscillation can only be done with the “music-chair” rule, such as,

       1 = (2, 3) = (2, (1, 2)) = (2, 1, 2)

That is, 1 is the “complement” of (2, 3), and it can play music-chair. A correct particle theory must encompass a substructure of this music-chair.

The five facts above are physics facts, not metaphysics or philosophic issues. But, the Standard Model fails on each and every one of them.  Should these five be the criteria for the correct particle theory?  This is a great question if no theory can meet these criteria. But, this is not the case. For “Super Unified Theory (Prequark Chromodynamics)”, it can derive all the five (5) above.

iv. Making contact to the known (5 criteria) above.
     1. Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, see

     2. Theoretical calculation of Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, see

     3. Acceleration of the expanding universe, see

     4. Meeting the Planck data;
         a. The dark/visible ratio (69/26/5), see

The five criteria above are enough to cut out all weeds. Yet, for the final test, two additional questions must be addressed.

a. Among many baryons, proton and neutron are rock bottom building blocks for bio-lives. “Should” one of them or both contain the “seed” of life? If not, what is the rationale for not to? If yes, then where is the hint of this seed? The point of the issue is whether this seed is in physics or in the breath of God.

Today, we do know what this seed should look like. Life is an information processing machine, that is, it needs a bio-computer. There are, in fact, two kinds of bio-computers in life, the DNA language and the protein language. It is reasonable to assume that they both share the same kind of CPU.

We also know that the best CPU is a Turing computer. The Life Game of John Conway showed that a “glider” can be the base for constructing a Turing computer. Thus, if one bio-building block (proton, neutron, electron or the whatnot) carries a sub-structure which is a glider, then the seed of life is in physics.

Of course, there is chance of any kind for the Standard Model to address this issue, but it is answered in Prequark Chromodynamics, see (Physics laws must give rise to biological lives directly, )

b. Both quantum and determinism are realities, that is, there must be a bridge between them. While both proton and neutron are, indeed, quantum particles, the quantum algebra shows that they are the bridge of these two realities. 

Proton (quantum) + electron (quantum) = hydrogen atom (quantum),
then, H + H + O (oxygen) = H2 O (water, determinism).

“Should” the seed of unification of quantum and determinism be part of their (proton and electron) attributes? If not, why not? Again, there is no chance of any kind for Standard Model to address this issue. Yet, it is the direct consequence of the Prequark Chromodynamics, as the  glider is a cellular automaton, 100% deterministic. Thus, if a quantum particle carries a glider as its sub-structure, its destiny will also be deterministic, see (Welcome to the camp of truth! Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, ).

With these two additional issues being addressed, this Litmus test is now complete. No further argument is needed for determining which one is the final valid physics theory.


  1. Well, we can of course find the reason from experiment and Dirac in the quantum theory of which we want to explain gravity with the standard forces there is a problem... what are there 48? particles (but thanks for showing me the way these are measured and the how those values are derived.

    Can we not abstract things to a multiversal Turing machine - the game of life simulation- is that unique among such pixel discrete concepts?

    The reason there are 48 is not simply the orthogonal cube symmetry as a group but it does have to do with orthogons from a discrete standpoint... and the bridges are a moot question in higher or superdeterminism although there are questions beyond that no doubt. Symmetry breaking is a weak idea as it stands in issues of locality and non-locality for example.

    In the quasi-finite universe like in the generations of neutrino flavor oscillations we do not have a rigid analogy of DNA or protein encoding. In the 3+1 formalism 48 is the number in the 2+2 it is 64. the prime 5 breaks down into 3+2 so the pattern of a cycle of 5 in this higher truth to a wider comprehensive new physics (and welcome to it too) it is fractal in the patterns much as of course the 24 dimensional patterns we find in numbers recently and in certain lattices. In that case 24,48,96,192 and 384 whicn is the group of the 4D orthogon... and so on.

    Angles are only useful if we still desire to put things into complex space but they are also determind by octonions, and angles over a range of octonions to quaternions. Draw or program a 3D or 4D complete fractal as I just heard it cannot be done so far.

    This is not to say on higher abstractions, as in loop quantum gravity, that a form of indeterminacy does not show up again, roughly randomness. I do not get what you are trying to say other than making objections on what amounts to the stark simplicity as philosophy. From my view I went beyond these sorts of debates long ago. Good luck on your researches. What they found from this Higgs was a great grand achievement in itself worthy of such a prize for the common sense obvious awakening to such a truth in theory- independently or who, unique as individuals, came to it first.

    1. L. Edgar Otto,

      Thanks for your comment.

      "I do not get what you are trying to say other than making *objections* on what amounts to the stark simplicity as philosophy."

      I do not quite understand your comment above. I have no objections in this article "Litmus test for the final physics" but listed a list of criteria for the final physics. Then, I did provide my own views on these criteria.

      Your comments are too general, and I cannot respond to them. If you comment on one at time, I will try to answer it.