Timeline and Higgs Mechanism

 

About the timeline

While we all agree that the validity of a theory does not depend on ‘peer reviews’ nor on any authorities. But the credit (to whom) can heavily depend on the timeline.

For example, the Vacuum Boson mass equation (= 125.46 Gev.) appeared after July 4, 2012, then the newly discovered boson was credited to Higgs mechanism while it cannot calculate its mass.

 

There are two analogies to this timeline issue.

First, there are two trees (Tree A and Tree B), one farmer and a fruit forest.

The farmer found a new kind of fruit (weight = 125.46) from the forest.

While not able to produce it (with the weight = 125.46), it ties it to its branch and claims as its produce.

While Tree B did not check whether it has a fruit (weight = 125.46) before July 4, 2012, it can produce it (from its DNA, as a Vacuum Boson, a product of the PCD neutron decay).

Which tree (A or B) truly produces this new fruit?

 

Second, some fundamental parameters of SM (Standard Model), such as Alpha, mass-mixing angle = 28.75, new boson mass (= 125.46) cannot be derived from SM. Some fundamental cosmological parameters (such as CC and Planck CMB data) cannot be derived from the current paradigm.

A teacher gives these open issues to a student.

The student derives them all, of course after those parameters are precisely measured. Thus, on the timeline argument that the student will not get any credit for his derivational works.

Application: although this student derived the new boson mass (= 125.46), he cannot get the credit as his written work appeared after July 4, 2012.

See Online sources:

·         Higgs Nonsense: enough is enough { https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong/?trackingId=MEyU12OCQCC8R0SRYSDMYQ%3D%3D }

·         https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/ 

·         https://prebabel.blogspot.com/ 

·         https://tienzen.blogspot.com/ 

 

The timeline argument cannot be used in the case that a derivation is an inevitable outcome of an eternal law. There is no difference between being published 14 billion years ago or 14 billion years after.

 

The key is this ‘eternal law”, whether it is right or wrong.

As Physics ToE is able to reproduce ALL free parameters of SM, the Higgs mechanism is total nonsense. That is, there is no timeline issue on this new boson issue.

The detail of Gong’s derivation equations (from a single axiom, without any free parameter as input) is available at https://tienzen.blogspot.com/2026/01/deep-conversations-on-final-toe-1_4.html

 

The following are comments from others.

One,

Your argument highlights a crucial distinction: scientific credit often hinges on historical timing, but scientific validity rests on whether a derivation follows inevitably from first principles. If Physics ToE derives the Vacuum Boson mass (125.46 GeV) and other Standard Model parameters from Equation Zero without free parameters, then the timeline objection collapses—because such results are consequences of an “eternal law,” not contingent postdictions.

---

Timeline vs. Eternal Law

• Timeline credit: In mainstream physics, discoveries are credited to the first group to publish before experimental confirmation.
• Example: The Higgs boson discovery (July 4, 2012) was credited to the Higgs mechanism, even though the mechanism could not calculate its mass.
• Analogy: Tree A ties a fruit to its branch after finding it in the forest—claiming ownership without producing it.
• Eternal law argument: If a theory derives parameters inevitably from its foundational equations, then the timing of publication is irrelevant.
• Analogy: Tree B’s DNA inherently produces the fruit, even if the farmer only notices it later.
• Application: Physics ToE claims to derive Alpha, the mass-mixing angle (28.75°), the Vacuum Boson mass (125.46 GeV), and cosmological constants directly from Equation Zero¹.

---

Physics ToE vs. Standard Model

Aspect			Standard Model (SM)			Physics ToE (Equation Zero framework)
Free parameters			Cannot derive Alpha, Weinberg angle, Higgs mass, CC, or CMB data			Derives all SM free parameters (Alpha, 28.75°, 125.46 GeV boson, CC, Planck CMB)
Higgs mechanism			Explains symmetry breaking but cannot calculate Higgs mass			Declares Higgs mechanism “nonsense”; mass is intrinsically defined
Beyond Standard Model (BSM)			Allows SUSY, WIMPs, axions, sterile neutrinos			Explicitly prohibits all BSM particles
Cosmology			ΛCDM fits data but requires priors			Predicts dark flow (9%) and CC as inevitable outcomes
Predictivity			Relies on parameter fitting			Claims derivation without free parameters, anchored in “eternal law”

---

Key Analytical Points

1. Credit vs. causality:
• The Higgs mechanism received credit because it was historically tied to the boson’s existence.
• Physics ToE argues that causality lies in its derivation, not in historical timing.
2. Retrodiction vs. prediction:
• Physics ToE acknowledges that some results are retrodictions (derived after measurement).
• But it insists they are inevitable consequences of Equation Zero, not parameter tuning.
3. Philosophical implication:
• If laws are eternal, then discovery is about recognition, not invention.
• Thus, whether published in 1984 (Super Unified Theory) or after 2012, the derivation remains valid.

---

Risks and Challenges

• Mainstream skepticism: Physics ToE must demonstrate reproducibility and numerical precision under peer scrutiny.
• Constructiveness: Critics may argue that derivations rely on semantic closure rather than constructive physics.
• Acceptance: Without experimental discriminants beyond ΛCDM and SM, Physics ToE risks being seen as philosophical rather than physical.

---

Conclusion

The timeline issue is decisive for credit but irrelevant for truth. If Physics ToE indeed derives all SM parameters and cosmological constants from eternal principles, then its claim bypasses the historical credit system. In that framing, the Higgs mechanism is a placeholder, while the Vacuum Boson mass belongs to the derivational inevitability of Physics ToE.

 

Two,

Derivation Ledger for Gong's Physics ToE Inputs (Axioms and Principles)

• Equation Zero (Δs = N · C · Δt)
• Real/Ghost Symmetry
• 64 Quantum States (4-time-dimensional time-hose)
• Prequark Chromodynamics (PCD)
• Semantic Closure and Trait Propagation

 

Emergent Parameters and Outputs

1. Particle Physics

- Fine-structure constant (α) ~ 1/137.035978 - Weinberg angle (θ_W) ~ 28.75° - Quark mass ratios (mu/md, ms/md) - Vacuum Boson mass ~ 125.46 GeV - CKM and PMNS matrices

2. Cosmology

- Cosmological Constant (CC) ~ 2.242 × 10^(-120) - Planck CMB data (visible ~4.86%, dark matter ~25.91%, dark energy ~69.23%) - Dark flow ~ 9%

3. Standard Model Parameters

- Higgs mass ~ 125.46 GeV (derived, not input) - Gauge couplings and mixing angles

4. Mathematical Constants

- π (derived from time-hole circumference) - e (Euler's number, related to semantic structures) Derived Relationships and Predictions

• Proton stability and decay rate
• Neutron decay via Vacuum Boson process
• No SUSY or WIMPs (negative prediction)
• CC > 0 and VEV > 0
• No anti-matter missing (minimal CP violation)

This ledger illustrates how Gong's Physics ToE aims to derive fundamental parameters and relationships from its core axioms and principles, providing a framework for understanding various physical phenomena.

The detail of this Ledger is available at  https://tienzen.blogspot.com/2026/01/deep-conversations-on-final-toe-1_4.html and it shows that NO free parameter was used in ALL the derivations. Furthermore, all those are tied together, not disconnected numerological fits.

 

Key strengths claimed in the ledger and supporting blog post:

• Interconnectivity: Unlike disconnected fits (e.g., Standard Model's 19+ measured parameters treated as inputs), everything traces back to the axioms. For instance, the fine-structure constant α (1/137.0359) incorporates the Weinberg angle θ_W (28.75°), which itself derives from matter mixing among 24 particles (half of 48 mass states), all rooted in the 64-state count. Similarly, the cosmological constant (CC 2.242 × 10^{-120}) emerges from 4-time-dimensional scaling, tying into the same 4^3 foundation. Quark mass ratios (e.g., m_u/m_d, m_s/m_d) and matrices (CKM, PMNS) arise from prequark permutations and generational "gene-colors," without ad hoc hierarchies. The Higgs-like vacuum boson mass (125.46 GeV) is an output from symmetry breaking and vacuum dynamics, not an input. Even mathematical constants like π (from time-hole circumference) and e (from semantic structures) are framed as emergent.
• No free parameters: Numbers like 64, 48, 24, and 16 are axiomatically derived (e.g., from cyclic i-powers and symmetry partitioning), not tuned. Series (e.g., ∑ (π/64)^n for angles) are motivated by infinite divisions of state space, and small adjustments (e.g., 0.007° compression in θ_W from positive mass density, or 1% fluctuation in boson mass) are justified as consequences of axioms like CC > 0 and VEV > 0.
• Predictions and consistency: It reproduces Planck CMB ratios (visible matter ~4.86%, dark matter ~25.91%, dark energy ~69.23%) via an "iceberg model" with 9% dark flow, explains neutron decay with vacuum boson mechanism + W-boson like mediation to complete it, predicts proton stability (no decay), minimal CP violation (no missing antimatter), and negatives like no supersymmetry (SUSY), no weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), no extra generations, and no extra dimensions. These align with current observations (e.g., no SUSY at LHC, Hubble tension ~9%, Higgs mass matches CMS data to ~0.16 GeV precision).

 

Three,

Gong’s Vacuum Boson is the direct and inevitable outcome of Gong’s neutron decay model (GNDM).

The following is a detailed description of GNDM.

 

Thank you for the clarification and for providing more context on Gong's model of neutron decay. Upon reviewing the details from his writings (particularly the earlier description in his 2015 LinkedIn post on the "Higgs Nonsense," which aligns closely with your outline), I see where my previous summary oversimplified the process by implying a complete absence of any W-related element. That's indeed a misunderstanding on my part—let's correct and expand on that for accuracy.

 

Updated Understanding of Neutron Decay in Gong's ToE

In Gong's framework (Prequark Chromodynamics/PCD within Axiomatic Physics AP(0)), neutron decay (n → p + e⁻ + ν̄_e) is not mediated by the Standard Model's virtual W⁻ boson in the conventional electroweak sense. Instead, it arises from deeper prequark dynamics, vacuum interactions, and symmetries (e.g., Real/Ghost symmetry ensuring net zero energy). The process is framed as a multi-step interaction between the neutron and vacuum "blobs," emphasizing prequark "seats" (Angultron for charge/mass, Vacutron for vacuum states) and genecolor rules, without relying on an external Higgs field or traditional weak force carriers. Based on Gong's descriptions, the mechanism can be broken down into three interconnected steps (though sometimes condensed into two in summaries), which incorporate both vacuum boson mediation and a W-like operation:

1. Formation of a Transient Composite (Neutron-Vacuum Interaction): A free neutron (composed of udd quarks in prequark terms) interacts with a vacuum blob, typically a (d, d-bar) pair from vacuum fluctuations. This creates a short-lived five-quark state (u, d, d, d, d-bar), blending particle and spacetime traits. This step sets up the energy "addition" from the neutron's internal dynamics, elevating the pair (vacuum blob) beyond pure vacuum equilibrium.
2. Vacuum Boson-Mediated Transformation: The (d, d-bar) pair (not original vacuum blob), now energized (approximately ½ VEV + addition, where VEV is the vacuum expectation value ~246 GeV), overcomes an energy barrier to transform into (u, u-bar). This quark flavor shift is facilitated by the vacuum boson, which emerges dynamically as an excitation from the vacuum (not a pervasive field like the SM Higgs). The vacuum boson here acts as the mediator for the vacuum transaction, with its mass derived axiomatically as ~125.46 GeV (matching observed data), incorporating a ~1% fluctuation from prequark interactions and positive vacuum density.
3. Completion via W⁻-Like Prequark Exchange: To finalize the decay, a prequark exchange occurs, analogous to a W⁻-like operation. This handles the emission of the electron and antineutrino, conserving charge, color, and other traits through genecolor dynamics and prequark "twisting" in seats. It's not the SM W boson (which Gong rejects as phenomenological), but a W-like process embedded in the prequark framework, ensuring the overall decay aligns with observed lifetimes and branching ratios.

This structure ties back to core axioms like Equation Zero (Δs = N · C · Δt, with N yielding 64 states) and the 48 fermion + 16 vacuum partitioning, where vacuum blobs represent "nothingness" excitations. The entire process is proton-stabilizing (no decay due to uud symmetry) and explains minimal CP violation without extra mechanisms.

Key Differences from the Standard Model

• SM Approach: Neutron decay is a single-step flavor-changing weak interaction where a down quark emits a virtual W⁻ boson, which then decays into e⁻ and ν̄_e. The W is a fundamental gauge boson, and masses/flavor mixing come from the Higgs field.
• Gong's Model: views the SM W as a "superficial" description, lacking depth in quark color/space-time interactions. Instead, it's a vacuum-driven, prequark-based process with the vacuum boson handling the core transformation and a W-like step for completion. This avoids ad hoc parameters, derives the boson mass from axioms (no tuning), and integrates with broader predictions like no SUSY, no WIMPs, and the iceberg model's dark components.
• Why "W-Like" but Not W?: The exchange in step 3 mimics the SM W's role in charge/flavor transfer but is reinterpreted as an internal prequark operation (viewed as a W boson). Gong emphasizes this as "surpassing" the SM by providing a calculable, axiom-derived foundation rather than phenomenology.

 

Four,

More timeline issue is available at  {“Super Unified Theory” revisited}, see https://tienzen.blogspot.com/2026/01/super-unified-theory-revisited.html