Friday, June 21, 2013

G-string, the final nail seals the Higgs coffin



{Note (added on April 2, 2015, months before the LHC run II):

There should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, see http://www.prequark.org/pq11.htm .


This vacuum boson's mass should be:

{Vacuum energy (about 246 Gev) divided by 2} + {a push over energy (vacuum fluctuation, about 2.46 Gev)}
= 123 + 2.46 = 125.46 Gev.

The above calculation has only one parameter: the vacuum energy. As a vacuum boson, its key feature is having a zero (0) spin.


Three years after the discovery of this new 125.4 Gev boson, the Higgs mechanism is not verified (see article form Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, totally nonsense, and of course there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.
End note.}




In the article (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6002 ), Peter Woit wrote, “…  since the story of the last thirty years is not one of evidence for string  [M-] theory unification accumulating, but the opposite: the more we learn about string [M-] theory, the less likely it seems that it can predict anything.  …
String [M-] theory unification is an idea now discredited in the scientific community, but getting propped up by TV programs and prizes from Russian billionaires. …
I actually know many people who work on string theory who have given up on the idea of getting the Standard Model out of it. The most common attitude I hear among string theorists is that the ways people used to hope to connect it to the SM have failed."


In fact, there is a litmus test to settle the above debate. Einstein said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother”.  In addition to simply agree with Einstein 100%, I would like to give it a theoretical support with the following points.


A. Whatever the “foundation” of this universe is, this universe evolves via the self-similarity transformation from that foundation. However complicated a “physics law” is, it is always only a “foundation” of the higher tier manifestations. That is, the essence of that physics law is expressed in every piece of the higher tier “expression”. If we cannot use a “story” which is easily understood by the old grandmother, we did not truly understand that complicated physics law, period.


B.  In general, people view the linguistics as languages. I will define the linguistics universe with three parts.
a. A meta-space --- it encompasses the events and objects in the physical universe.

b. Languages --- they try to describe the stories in that meta-space.

c. A meaning-space --- the meaning of the meta-space story is understood by people.


In general, a meta-space story could be understood differently by different people who have different world views. However, we could exclude the culture element and deal the issue strictly linguistically, that is, in terms of translation among languages only. Then, the meaning-space for all languages is identical.


Now, for all languages (including mathematics), they share two identical continents (meta-space and meaning-space). That is, “all” languages are permanently linked among one another by these two continents. And, every language can be “translated” to any other language. Math is the “simplest” language in linguistics. When one cannot translate a math equation to a nature language, he does for sure not truly understand that math equation.


Now, the true “solid” facts in physics are,
a. The Planck data (dark energy, dark matter, visible matter and Neff = 3), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html

b. There are 48 known elementary particles.


If we can show these two facts to the old grandmother, we have understood the essences of these two physics facts. The following is the explanation.


Grandmother, this universe is very simple, just the same as an amphitheater which has 4 parts.
1. It sits in a big “field” (open space, dark energy ).
2. It has an audiences section (not shining, dark mass).
3. It has a stage (for actors, visible mass).
4. It has a backstage (for directors, screenplay writers, etc.; anti-matter)


The open field carries tremendous amount of dark energy. The chairs in all section(s) carry a lot of dark mass. Of course, there are three types of chairs (L1, L2, L3), one for each “section”. Every chair is made of a piece of tree trunk (a line-string, that is).  A line-string has three parts, the two ends and one middle section which connects the two ends. Thus, the three parts of this line-string are distinguishable and can be written as (a, b, c) in mathematical symbols. Yet, there is a special property of this line-string. When its two ends join together, its three parts are no longer distinguishable. It works just like following the “color rules”. Thus, I will use (red, yellow, blue) or (r, y, b) to replace the old (a, b, c) symbol. So, every piece of tree trunk (line-string) can sit three audiences, three actors or three directors, etc..


Now, we have an empty amphitheater. With some “people” come in, it will come alive. And, its liveliness (dynamics) can be described with some formulas. Let’s using ,
i. A (audience, actor; as a person)
ii. V (vacant seat)


So, by knowing the seating situations, we can calculate the entire dynamics of the theater. Of course, every person who comes in needs pay a “charge”. As he sits on only 1/3 of the tree trunk, he pays only 1/3 of “charge”. The status of every chair (tree trunk) can be identified with a color system. After “A” occupies a seat, that seat color is blocked (A being opaque). Of course, V (being a vacant seat) is transparent. Now, the status of the seating situation can be identified with the following system.

      1. (V, V, V) = (r, y, b) = white = colorless, as V is transparent.
      2. (A, A, A) = colorless = white, as A is opaque.
      3. (V, A, A) = (r, A, A) = red;  (A, V, A) = yellow;  (A, A, V) = blue
      4, (V, V, A) = (r, y, A) = blue (complement of r + Y)


With the above, we can identify “all” possible seating situation in the theater. Just for the fun, I will call a tree trunk as G-string and give some funny names (no special meaning to them) for those different types of sitting situation as below.


String 1 =  (V,  A,  A 1) = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.
String 2 =  (A,  V, V  1) = {1st , red, 1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red anti-down quark.
String 3 =  (A,  A, V  1) =  {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.
String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).
String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.
String 9 = (V,  A,  A 2) {2nd  , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.
String 48 = -(V, V, V 3)  - {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.


Not only is this description of an amphitheater (the G-strings) definitely understood by the old grandmother, but it has accomplished the task of getting the SM (Standard Model) out, which was an impossible task for the M-string theory for over 40 years.




This amphitheater model also provides the calculation for Planck CMB data 1: (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82)

Seven (7) G1 strings are the actors on stages, visible mass.
The e-neutrino, G2, G3 strings (total 17) are audience, dark mass 1.
The anti-matters (total 24) are on the backstage (directors), dark mass 2.

So, the d/v (dark/visible ratio) = [41 (100 – W) % / 7]

When, W = 9 % (the dark radiation, the ratio of dark mass melting into dark energy), d/v = 5.33

[(Z – V) x (100 – W) %] /5.33 = V, V is visible mass of this universe; Z = (1/3).

[(33.33 –V) x .91]/5.33 = V

V= 5.69048 / 1.17073 = 4.86   (while the Planck data is 4.82),

D (Dark mass) = [(Z – 4.86) x (100 – W) %] = [(33.33 -4.86) x .91] = 25.90 (while the Planck data = 25.8)

See, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ for details.

By passing this grandmother test, the G-string is definitely a foundation for the Standard Model. Yet, the G-string rules out the Higgs hallucination (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/higgs-chicken-higgs-egg-and-higgs.html ) and is the last nail on Higgs coffin.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Higgs chicken, Higgs egg and Higgs hallucination


{Note (added on April 2, 2015, months before the LHC run II):

There should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, see http://www.prequark.org/pq11.htm .


This vacuum boson's mass should be:

{Vacuum energy (about 246 Gev) divided by 2} + {a push over energy (vacuum fluctuation, about 2.46 Gev)}
= 123 + 2.46 = 125.46 Gev.

The above calculation has only one parameter: the vacuum energy. As a vacuum boson, its key feature is having a zero (0) spin.


Three years after the discovery of this new 125.4 Gev boson, the Higgs mechanism is not verified (see article form Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, totally nonsense, and of course there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.
End note.}




After the discovery of a 125 Gev boson last July (2012) at LHC, it is now called as Higgs boson by all presentations which discuss that new particle. Thus, I must show that the Higgs hallucination is simply fairy tales with the following stories, as there is a good other model available.


Story one:
Mother: Hi, baby, it is the time to hit the sack.

Baby: I am still working on my homework, the neutron decay. How can a three string particle (u, d, d) become 5 strings (u, u, d, e, anti-e-neutrino), especially a “d” had a sex-change for becoming a “u”?


Mother: This is the most famous fairy tale. Here comes an angel who gave the “d” a kick on its butt, and it comes the “u”.


Baby: Who is the angel?


Mother: Who? Who?  The “W”.


Baby: Then, where are this e and the neutrino coming from?


Mother: Oh. The “W” angel flies away as the e and the neutrino.


Baby: Where was the “W” angel coming from?


Mother: There is a Higgs chicken (field) which is omnipresent, and it can lay a Higgs egg anywhere at any time at its choosing. The “W” angel was hiding in the Higgs egg all this time.


Baby: Thanks Mon. This is a great fairy tale. I now can sleep in peace.


Story two:
Brother: Mon, your fairy tale is very interesting. But, I learned a different story about the neutron decay.


Mother: There cannot be any different story. This fairy tale is the “Standard Model”. But, go ahead tell me your story.

Brother: Every system consists of three parts.
i. An envelope which divides it into two regions.
ii. The “internal” --- with some members, having some relationships among them (the dynamics)
iii. The “external” --- with sea of …

For the convenience, we call these members as “chairs” which the dynamics as “music-chair game”. And, the external sea is expressed as a sea of (virtue) chairs.


When one of the internal chairs is captured (arrested) by external (virtue) chairs, the system breaks up (must decay). If the external (virtue) chairs [the vacuum energy] lack the energy to arrest an internal chair of a system, that system will not decay. These can be summarized as the “Show-will-never-end” principle:  If the music-chair-game can be played forever “internally” (self-playing), the system will never decay. Otherwise, the system must open its door and let the external chairs coming, which leads the decay. With these, it is quite easy to show that Proton will not decay at the current vacuum energy level. Thus, I will only talk about the neutron decay.


Mother: Interesting concept but making sense. But, what is this got to do with the neutron decay which is wholly understood with the Higgs tale.


Brother: The Higgs hallucination is truly a fairy tale. The true process is that the (u, d1, d2) picks up a virtue d-pair (d3, -d3), the vacuum disturbance.  And it forms a 5-quark blob. Then,
Step 1: (d1, -d3) got together

Step 2: (d1, -d3) turns into (u1, -u3), that is, a vacuum state transforms into another vacuum state.

Step 3: (d3, -u3) got together. Then, this blob has a genetic exchange and flies away as the e and the neutrino.

 So, (u, d1, d2) decaies into as (u, u1, d2, e, neutrino).

Mon, you have mistaken this vacuum transformation blob as the Higgs egg.


Mother: Your story follows all physics laws, and it makes sense. But it is wrong because that it is not the Standard Model.



Story three:

Baby: I don’t like your “vacuum blob” story. It is too rational and too cold. I like the fairy tale, not because of its being the Standard Model but because that it is “Magical”. A Higgs chicken (field) is omnipresent and can lay Higgs egg any time at any place at its choosing. Then, out it pops a “W”-angel when neutron got out of from bondage. Furthermore, no gadget thus far (including the LHC) in this world is able to distinguish your “vacuum blob” from the Higgs egg. That is, that fairy egg can be as real as the “vacuum blob” reality, and there is no gadget data can prove it otherwise.


Brother: Hi, baby, for the gadget testing concern, you might be right for the next decade or two. But, in sports, any tie can be easily broken by “overtime”, the tie-break-litmus test.

The Standard Model is absolutely correct in terms of that entire gadget testing data. But, as soon as it goes out of its baby crib, SM fails from left to right, from top to bottom. It (SM) cannot derive most of the “parameters” it used in the model (such as, the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, the Alpha, etc.). Furthermore, it fails on all the following known physics facts;

i.  Planck data --- dark energy (accelerating expansion of this universe), dark matter, Neff = 3 (minimum), etc. .

ii. Neutrino oscillations

iii. Proton’s stability

iv. Guidelines for SUSY (with s-particle)

v. About gravity

vi. Unification between quantum and determinism.


That is, the Standard Model is only the hodgepodge of the gadget data.  And, simply it has “no” theoretical “base” for deriving those parameters and for connecting to those other physics facts.


Thus, those other facts above become the overtime litmus tests. Anyone who can solve any one of those other facts or derive those free parameters is the winner of this contest. 


Baby: Yet, most of those issues are controversial and cannot be decided with the current gadget testing.


Brother: Indeed. But, the Cabibbo - Weinberg angles and the Alpha are only three “numbers”. The only gadgets needed for testing them are “paper and pencil” which are in the hands of every first grader. There will be absolutely no controversy about whether an equation for calculating one of them is correct or not. Thus, we can simply choose Alpha as this overtime Litmus test, to be the “first” criterion for the correct final physics.


Baby: That is great. But, verifying the “prediction” of a theory was the only criterion for physics theory thus far. How can you convince physicists to accept your overtime idea?


Brother: Most of theory is the “extension” of known physics. Thus, it must “predict” something new in order to be credible. But, when a “system” is constructed from a “base” which contains no “known” physics of any kind, it is credible only if it can “reproduce” all known physics, not just any puny “prediction”.  That is, system has “outcomes (or consequences)” while theory has “prediction”. And, there is a super strong requirement for “base”. It must not contain any “known physics”, that is, no known physics is “put-in” into the base. Thus, “reproduce all known physics from a base (without containing any known physics)” is the second “Overtime test”, the second criterion.


Baby: Must a base be verified by gadget testing?


Brother: No, no, and no! The “base” needs no verification. If a “wrong” base produces a system which can reproduce all known physics, it is a “good” base.


Baby: Just heard in the news that a “W”-einstein had discovered the final physics theory. Do you know anything about it?


Brother: No, never heard about it. If he can pass two tests,
a. Litmus test --- deriving the Alpha with a physics equation
b. A base is able to reproduce, at least, the known 48 elementary particles
then, he could be on the path to the final physics. Otherwise, even the “Z”-einstein won’t do any good.


Baby: Obviously, the Higgs story failed the first overtime litmus test. Can you derive Alpha from a base (without containing any known physics)?


Brother: Yet, see the article “Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, mystery no more!” at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html