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 .

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 an article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, total nonsense, and of course, there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.

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 another 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 of 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 a 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 by 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 the 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, a 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

No comments:

Post a Comment