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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-mass-gateway-to-final-physics.html

     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,

      S (space) = f (time, c), See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html

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

    1.  Both  Cabibbo angle (θ_c  about 13 degrees) and the Weinberg angle (θ_W  from 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 http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/  ), 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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/08/dark-matter-mystery-no-more-part-2.html  ).  

For dark energy, it uses an iceberg model (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html ). 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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html

     2. Theoretical calculation of Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html

     3. Acceleration of the expanding universe, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/acceleration-of-expanding-universe.html

     4. Meeting the Planck data;

         a. The dark/visible ratio (69/26/5), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html

         b. Neff =3, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html

     5. Neutrino oscillation, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/neutrino-oscillation-mystery-no-more.html

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, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/physics-laws-must-give-rise-to.html )

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, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013_01_01_archive.html ).

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.

Higgs game is over

{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.}

CERN did it again, with caveats forever. In the press releases (AMS experiment measures antimatter excess in space, http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/04/ams-experiment-measures-antimatter-excess-space  ) on April 3, 2013, CERN said, “These results are consistent with the positrons originating from the annihilation of dark matter particles in space, but not yet sufficiently conclusive to rule out other explanations.

...

said AMS spokesperson, Samuel Ting. “Over the coming months, AMS will be able to tell us conclusively whether these positrons are a signal for dark matter, or whether they have some other origin.

…

One possibility, predicted by a theory known as supersymmetry, is that positrons could be produced when two particles of dark matter collide and annihilate. Assuming an isotropic distribution of dark matter particles, these theories predict the observations made by AMS. However, the AMS measurement cannot yet rule out the alternative explanation that the positrons originate from pulsars distributed around the galactic plane. Supersymmetry theories also predict a cut-off at higher energies above the mass range of dark matter particles, and this has not yet been observed. Over the coming years, AMS will further refine the measurement’s precision, and clarify the behaviour of the positron fraction at energies above 250 GeV.”

This CERN’s news-hype was criticized immediately by a few prominent physicists. In the article (First results of AMS-02 , http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2013/04/first-results-of-ams-02.html ), it says,  “They say that ‘...over the coming months, AMS will be able to tell us conclusively whether these positrons are a signal for dark matter...’. However this is just a lot of smoke without fire. There's absolutely no way that measurements of the positron spectrum may give us a reliable evidence for dark matter: not now, and not anytime soon."

In the article (AMS Presents Some First Results on Cosmic Rays and Dark Matter, http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/04/03/ams-presents-some-first-results/#comment-51341 ), it says, : "Despite what you may read, we are no closer to finding dark matter than we were last week. Any claims to the contrary are due to scientists spinning their results (and to reporters who are being spun)."

In addition to many objections from those physicists, there is a fundamental method to sort out this issue.

LHC, Planck and AMS are great gadgets, and they produce great facts (data). However, these gadget facts are differentiated truths. Integrating them is more important than those truths themselves (see http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/28/hes-not-wrong-the-us-and-science-research/#comment-50470 ). Yet, there are many different ways of integration.

a. Hodgepodge integration --- the similar truths are mixed together to form a hodgepodge, such as with the discovery of electron, proton, quark, …, neutrino, … to construct the Standard Model.

b. Mission-based integration ---  for particle physics, it has, at least, two types of mission.

     i. Public (Pu-) mission  --- the public demands it to make, at least, two applications

         1. How did life arise?

         2. How did universe arise?

    ii. Physicist (Ph-) mission:

         1. How to unify the quantum and determinism.

         2. How to encompass the gravity.

However valid that the Standard Model is in terms of the gadget data, it is only a very small niche truth at this point, without any hint for contacting the life rising mechanism and even failed in terms of the Planck data.  The collect subconscious of the public knows exactly what the truth is. An isolated niche truth is not only with little value but is definitely not a true truth.

Thus, however successful the Standard Model is as gadget facts, it is a junk when it fails on the above missions. On the other hand, if a particle theory is a mission-completed theory, it will definitely be Nature physics, as it has integrated over many gadget truths and fulfilled the required missions. Mission-criteria epistemology (based on integrated facts) is more powerful than any gadget fact based epistemology (as only differentiated truth).

Biological life is an information processing system, that is, it needs a bio-computer. And, we already know that the glider of Life Game (of John Conway) can be the base for building a Turing computer. Thus, in the life-system hierarchies (from elementary particles to atoms to bio-compounds), if we can find a glider-like structure in one tier, we have found the life-rising mechanism.

I have also showed that an iceberg model can wholly explain the Planck data (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html ).

Thus, if a particle theory can encompass both the framework of a glider and the iceberg model, it is the Public-mission-completed theory.  The Prequark Chromodynamics is, indeed, such a particle theory (see http://www.prequark.org/pq05.htm ).

Furthermore, it is quite easy to prove a theorem below.

Theorem: If and only if Theory A (TA) is public-mission-completed, then TA is Physicist-mission-completed.

Now, with the Prequark Chromodynamics being fully developed, the Higgs game is over.

Planck data, the last straw on Higgs’ back

{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 an article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, total nonsense, and of course, there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.

Endnote.}

The recent Planck data showed three facts about our universe.

a. There is a hemispheric asymmetry in terms of CMB.

b. The Neff is 3, that is, the 4^th kind (generation) of neutrino is ruled out.

c. The universe is made up of 69.2±1.0% dark energy, 25.8±0.4% dark matter, and 4.82±0.05% visible matter.

The makeup of the universe [the point (c)] can be easily modeled with an iceberg model.  In an iceberg model, a particle is defined as the “tip” (visible part) of the iceberg. And, this particle “iceberg” is composed of three parts.

a. A big chunk of ice.

b. A big ocean of water.

c. A big sky of space.

Here, the sea water is completely opaque, and the ice under the water is totally invisible.

 For a universe which contains only one (single) such particle (iceberg), its three constituent parts carry the equal weights among them in terms of energy.  Then, the big chunk of ice weighs about 33% of the total. In terms of the “real” ice, the tip of the iceberg is about 10% of the total ice mass. In this model, let the particle (visible part of the ice) be 5% and the invisible ice be 28% (making a total of 33%).

Now, this iceberg universe has 67% dark energy, 28% dark matter and 5% visible mass. In this model, the ice is also melting away, saying about a bit less than 10%.  Then, the dark matter reduces to 28 – 2 = 26 (%) and the dark energy increases to 67 + 2 = 69 (%).

This iceberg model consists of two points.

1. It is a composite universe,  in terms of its rock-bottom particles.

2. There is a melting mechanism (see Note).

The Planck map (P-map) can be viewed as the surface of a golf ball; the hot spot as the high point while the cold spot as the valley. Then, the melting mechanism of the iceberg model can reproduce the P-map. For each iceberg, there is a cold spot which is surrounded by a hot donut. With zillions of iceberg clumped together, a P-map will be produced.

Thus, if a particle theory which is intended to describe the foundation of this universe is not encompassing an iceberg-like model, it cannot be a valid theory.

As the Neff is 3, thus a theory which is not intrinsically ruling out the fourth generation cannot be a correct theory.

"The hemispheric asymmetry" indicates that the entire universe has an intrinsic dynamics, and that dynamics must be inherited by the particles of this universe. Again, a particle theory which is not encompassing these intrinsic dynamics cannot be the valid theory.

For the current definition of Higgs mechanism, it has no connection of any kind to these three Planck facts. Thus, the Higgs is of course not a correct theory for the “universe”. Yet, can it be valid in a small scope, much smaller than the universe, similar to many outdated theories? If no theory can “replace” it in that small scope, then it still has its place. But, “Prequark Chromodynamics” is not only replacing it in that small scope but is encompassing all the three Planck facts above.  The iceberg model is the intrinsic consequence of the Prequark Chromodynamics.

Yet, many claims that as long as the LHC new boson is found to have spin zero, then Higgs is vindicated.   In the article “Cosmic Conflation: The Higgs, The Inflaton, and Spin (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/26/cosmic-conflation-the-higgs-the-inflaton-and-spin/#comment-50137 )”, it says,  "Yes, the Higgs field, responsible for the mass of many elementary particles, …, is a spin-zero field (which means the Higgs particle has zero spins). And yes, the “inflaton field” (the name given to the hypothetical field that, by giving the universe a lot of extra “dark energy” in the early universe, is supposed to have caused the universe to expand at a spectacular rate) is also probably a spin-zero field (in which case the inflaton particle also has zero spin). Well, fish and whales both have tails, and both swim in the sea; yet that doesn’t make them closely related."

With this “zero spins” issue being cleared, the LHC new boson must be the prequark composite.

Note (added on September 24, 2013): After the AMS02 data released on April 3, 2013, the melting rate for the dark matter is established about 8 to 10%. By choosing it as 9%, the dark mass should be

[(33.3 – 4.82) x (100 - 9)%] =  25.91 (while the Planck data is 25.8), then,

the dark mass/visible mass ratio was calculated as 5.3755 (while the Planck data shows the ratio = 25.8/4.82 = 5.3526), see http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/   or   http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/08/dark-matter-mystery-no-more-part-2.html (Dark matter, mystery no more, part 2!) for the calculation.

The dark energy = 66.66 + [(33.3 – 4.82) x  9%] = 66.66 + 2.56 = 69.22 (while the Planck data is 69.2)

This iceberg model was initially posted as a comment (on March 25, 2013) at http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/21/the-universe-according-to-planck-the-satellite/#comment-49934 

CERN’s Higgs announcement, caveats forever

{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 an article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, total nonsense, and of course, there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.

Endnote.}

Three months after the end of the LHC run 1 and nine months after the last year July announcement of the discovery of a new boson, the Moriond conference was expected to confirm the identity of this new particle. Now, the Moriond conference came and went. The following is the current situation.

a. For the decaying to two-photon, the CMS and Atlas data sets are in fact disproving each other.

b. With the CMS decaying to two-photon data, it is not enough to sustain the discovery claim it made last July.

c. There is a discrepancy in Atlas data, being has two mass peaks for the new particle.

Traditionally, CMS should retract its discovery claim in terms of its new two-photon data. However, the existence of this new boson is strongly supported by Atlas data. Thus, CERN had a news release on March 14, 2013, with the title “New results indicate that particle discovered at CERN is a Higgs boson (http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1032641 )”.  The term “indicate” is much weaker than “confirm”, and the announcement is filled with caveats. The following is an abridged announcement.

“Having analyzed two and a half times more data than was available for the discovery announcement in July, they find that the new particle is looking more and more like a Higgs boson, the particle linked to the mechanism that gives mass to elementary particles. It remains an open question, however, whether this is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, or possibly the lightest of several bosons predicted in some theories that go beyond the Standard Model. Finding the answer to this question will take time.

...

To determine if this is the Standard Model Higgs boson, the collaborations have, for example, to measure precisely the rate at which the boson decays into other particles and compare the results to the predictions. ... To characterize all of the decay modes will require much more data from the LHC.”

These caveats simply say that CERN does not truly know what the exact identity of this particle is. Thus, many physicists disagree with CERN.

  

In the article “Higgs: more of the same (19 March 2013, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2013/03/higgs-more-of-same.html  )”, it says, “To say that the Higgs is standard-model-like is an understatement.  This bastard screams and spits standard model.  After the Moriond updates, the standard model gives an absolutely perfect fit to the combined data (previously it was disfavored at 80% confidence level, mostly due to the late diphoton excess).  Not even a single cliffhanger to makes us wait for the next episode.....  If there's anything non-standard about the Higgs couplings to matter it is hiding very well and will be tricky to uncover at the LHC, even after the energy upgrade.”

In the article “Review of the Higgs-to-2-Photon Data (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/18/review-of-the-higgs-to-2-photon-data/ )”, it says, “So as far as the Higgs particle’s decays to two photons, we’ve gotten as much (or almost as much) information as we’re going to get for the moment; and we have no choice but to accept that the current situation is ambiguous and to wait for more data in 2015. Of course, the Standard Model may break down sooner than 2015, for some other reason that the experimenters have yet to uncover in the 2011-2012 data. But the two-photon measurement won’t be the one to crack the armor of this amazing set of equations.  (For those who got all excited last July;  you were warned that the uncertainties were very large and the excess might well be ephemeral.)”

This is the fairest statement among all physics blogs in reflecting the true situation. Most of the others simply combine the two disjoint data sets (almost disproving each other) to get a happy “1”, perfect in agreement with the Standard Model.

In the article “From “Higgs-like Particle” to “Standard Model-like Higgs (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/15/from-higgs-like-particle-to-standard-model-like-higgs/ )”, it says, “It is, therefore, natural to call this a Standard Model-like Higgs particle, shifting the “-like” over a step.  That wording emphasizes that although confidence is very high that this is a Higgs particle, we do not have confidence that it is a Standard Model Higgs, even though it resembles one.  This is for two reasons.

First, with the data currently available, the measurements are not precise enough to rule out deviations from a Standard Model….

Second, many interesting speculative theories, despite being dramatically different from the Standard Model, nevertheless predict nature will exhibit a Standard Model-like Higgs particle — one that may be distinguishable from a true Standard Model Higgs only after the LHC has gathered much more data.”

The acknowledgment of the possibility that another theory could be the true cause of this new particle is a very important advancement.

There are two types of physics, the nature physics (N-physics) and the human physics (H-physics). Some H-physics become N-physics after a thorough testing and verification. By knowing the two physics, the validity of a theoretical model can be determined by checking its scope, how many N-physics it encompasses.

      

There are some known N-physics.

1. The expansion of the universe is accelerating.

2. The visible mass of the universe is not enough to describe the structure of the universe.

3. The proton’s half-life is longer than the life of this universe.

4. Neutrino has some rest masses.

5. many, many more.

As the SM (Standard Model) failed on addressing the above N-physics, its correctness is limited to a small scope regardless of any additional data. While this verdict is already given, today’s issue is whether one part of the SM is correct or not.  

SM is a hodgepodge of phenomena (test data). It consists of three parts.

i. A quark and lepton universe.

ii. Some quantum parameters, such as Cabibbo - Weinberg angles (wholly based on test data) as free parameters.

iii. A theoretical speculation --- the Higgs mechanism.

There is no question for the first two parts of SM as they are derived wholly from the data. Yet, is its only theoretical speculation (the Higgs mechanism) correct? In addition to the direct data confirmation, we have better ways to answer this question.

A. Is its extension correct?  SUSY  is an extension of the Higgs, and Joe Lykken (Fermilab) is now claiming that there is “No SUSY, No Naturalness Problem,  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5667 ). When its extension is wrong, the chance for it itself to stay valid is greatly reduced.  Yet, no SUSY (with s-particles) is the direct consequence of the Prequark Chromodynamics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/supersymmetry-gone-with-wind.html ). The supersymmetry in Prequark Chromodynamics is in a much higher level, without s-particle of any kind.

B. There is a direct replacement of the Higgs mechanism, the Prequark field which has a much bigger scope, encompassing all N-physics and beyond.

      1. It reproduces the quark and lepton universe (http://www.prequark.org/ )

      2. It can calculate the Cabibbo - Weinberg angles theoretically (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html ). We can always come up an equation to produce any given number, and it is called numerology. But, if the three numbers (Cabibbo - Weinberg angles and the electron fine structure constant) are derived from a single “physics” concept of a theory, this again is a supremely powerful material fact.

       3. Today (March 21, 2013), NASA announced the new CMB [Cosmic Microwave Background] results from the Planck satellite (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5685), and it rules out a fourth neutrino. SM cannot provide a theoretical base for setting the numbers of generations in the quark and lepton universe. But, in Prequark Chromodynamics (PC), the number of generation must be exactly 3 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html ).

       4. The quantum/determinism dilemma is a real issue in the N-physics. This issue is easily resolved in PC (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/01/welcome-to-camp-of-truth-nobel-laureate.html ).  

       5. That “the expansion of the universe is accelerating" is also a direct consequence of the PC (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/acceleration-of-expanding-universe.html ), predicted 20 years before the observation and confirmation.

The list above is all material facts which cannot be changed by any additional data. Thus, CERN’s announcement must carry caveats forever, or it must retract its statements sooner or later. But I agree to allow more data to be the jury.

Higgs-like forever and ever more!

{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 an article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, total nonsense, and of course, there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.

Endnote.}





Next week (the first week of March 2013), the Moriond conference will be held to make a new report on the Higgs search.

On June 28, 2012 (7 days before the July 4, 2012 CERN announcement about the discovery of a new boson), I commented at “Of Particular Significance” (a physics blog by Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler, http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/06/27/this-sites-background-articles-on-the-higgs/#comment-12536 ) saying, “Now, only 7 days to the CERN news conference on the Higgs update. If CERN made an announcement about the discovery of the SM Higgs in that conference outright, it will eventually be proved as a transient vision. A “bigger” gadget will eventually overturn it.”   Also see “The nightmare vs. the new era, http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/07/nightmare-vs-new-era.html ).

Again, if CERN confirms that the new boson is a Higgs of any kind in the next week conference at Moriond, it will eventually eat its words. The reason is very simple. There is Prequark Chromodynamics (http://www.prequark.org/ ), and the Higgs mechanism is simply a shadow of the Prequark mechanism. That is, the best that the Higgs can ever get is the “Higgs-like” and no more.  The Higgs-like is forever and ever more.

Today is my birthday, and I am celebrating it by making this prediction to make and to mark the history forever and ever more.

Welcome to the camp of truth! Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

The papabear, Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, published a new book "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, ISBN-13: 978-1107028722" on November 30, 2012, and it is a textbook, suited to a one-year graduate course on Quantum Mechanics.

One passage of the book which is quoted widely among physics blogs is,

“My own conclusion (not universally shared) is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation.”

Yet, most of the physics blogger’s comments are negative. The followings are two of them.

“One may see that Weinberg's views have changed. Unfortunately, the direction of the change may be associated with the word "aging".  ... But the older Weinberg is still prejudiced that there should be some "less quantum" foundations beneath the quantum phenomena although this more general prejudice is still scientifically unjustifiable and ultimately wrong. (see http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/weinbergs-evolving-views-on-quantum.html ).”

“I fear I’m with those who don’t share this conclusion, but his arguments are well-worth paying attention to. For someone else who has thought deeply about all this, and come to conclusions closer to my own less well-considered ones, … (see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5487 ).”

Although I have advocated this view since 1980, the most recent articles which are available online were posted in April 2012 (six months before Weinberg’s book).  The axiomatic physics (the satisfactory other theory that Weinberg is looking for) is more fundamental than Quantum Mechanics. The followings are a few of them.

a. Axiomatic physics, the final physics (APRIL 28, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html ).

b. Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology (MAY 1, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html ).

c. Quantum behavior vs. the Cellular Automaton determinism (AUGUST 16, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/08/quantum-behavior-vs-cellular-automaton.html ).

d. Quantum algebra and axiomatic physics (SEPTEMBER 2, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/09/quantum-algebra-and-axiomatic-physics.html ).

In fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM expressed the Principle of Complementarity. Yet, the more fundamental principle is the Principle of Mutual Immanence which was discussed at http://www.prequark.org/Overview.htm#Mut , which was posted online in February 1996.

Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, Welcome to the camp of truth!

Preons are dead, but prequarks are fully alive

In an article at (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5241 ), it wrote, “The latest Scientific American has a cover story about particle physics…. It’s called “The Inner Life of Quarks” and discusses models in which quarks and other elementary particles of the standard model are composites of more elementary objects called “preons”. The fact that the papers on the subject it refers to are from 1979 should make one suspicious: an idea that hasn’t had major developments in 33 years is a dead idea. Besides the overwhelming experimental evidence against preons (with the LHC bringing in many new much stronger negative results), the idea has huge inherent problems. The main issue is that one is trying to put together composites with masses as small as MeVs (or lower, if you try to do this with neutrinos) while the data says that things are point-like up to TeV scales, with just the forces you know about up to such scales.

The following is the summary of Scientific American’s article.

1.       In 1869 Dmitri Mendeleev created the periodic table of chemical elements by noticing that elements' properties fit into a repeating pattern, which physicists later explained as a consequence of atomic structure. A similar story may be playing out in particle physics again today.

2.       The 12 known elementary particles have their own repeating patterns, suggesting they are not truly fundamental but actually tiny balls containing smaller particles, which physicists tentatively call preons.

3.       Other evidence argues against this possibility. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, along with several lesser-known experiments, may finally settle the question.

The whole article is available at (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n5/full/scientificamerican1112-36.html ). 

There are major differences (at least four) between the preons/Rishons and the prequarks.

One, The Preon model (done by Abdus Salam) which was expanded as Rishons model (mainly done by Haim Harari). This Rishons model is very similar to my Prequark model. It has sub-quarks (T, V): {T (Tohu which means "unformed" in Hebrew Genesis)  and V ( Vohu which means "void" in Hebrew Genesis)}. But, Harari did not know what T is (just being unformed). On the other hand, the A (Angultron) is an innate angle, a base to calculate Weinberg angle and Alpha.

Two, the choosing of (T, V) as the bottom was ad hoc, a result of reverse-engineering. On the contrary, there is a very strong theoretical reason for where the BOTTOM is for G-theory.

In G-theory, the universe is ALL about computation, computable or non-computable. For computable, there is a TWO-code theorem. For non-computable, there are 4-color and 7-color theorems.

That is, the BOTTOM must be with two-codes. Any lower level under the two code will become TAUTOLOGY, just repeating itself.

Anything more than two codes (such as 6 quarks + 6 leptons) cannot be the BOTTOM.

Three, rishons (T or V) carry hypercolor to reproduce the quark color, but this set up renders the model non-renormalizable, quickly going into a big mess. So, it was abandoned on day one. On the other hand, prequarks (V or A) carry no color, and the quark color arises from the “prequark SEATs”. In short, Rishons model cannot work out a {neutron decay process} different from the SM process.

This is one of the key differences between prequark and (Rishons and SM).

Four, Preon/Rishons model does not have Gene-colors.

More details are available at http://www.prequark.org/ .