Super Unified Theory via a new methodology

The modern physics evolves from the Newtonian physics to Relativity theories, to Quantum physics, to the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. This is a great triumph journey.

However, the recent results from LHC might sink the foundation of Standard Model if the SM Higgs particle is ruled out. Then, there must be a new physics. In fact, there must be a new physics even if SM Higgs were found, as the Standard Model can still not work by itself all the way to the Planck mass scale.

Physics is trying to “discover” the secrets of Nature with the interplay of theories and experiments. Thus, the scope of a theory is tightly bundled with its predictions which must be experimentally verified. This methodology is inductive in essence although the constructing of a theory is often employing some deductive reasoning.  This methodology has proved its worth time and over. But, it is very costly. If LHC cannot discover that hidden new physics, a bigger machine must be built.

While we are waiting for the birth announcement of a new physics from the above process, I would like to introduce a new way of thinking, a new methodology of doing physics, the Fictitious Universe methodology.

We can construct a Fictitious Universe by arbitrary choosing a set of definitions and axioms.  From this set of arbitrary chosen definitions and axioms, we “derive” (not discover) a set of laws and theorems which govern all phenomena in this Fictitious Universe. Then, we can compare this Fictitious Universe to the Nature Universe, item by item (that is, phenomenon by phenomenon and law by law). If the match is bad, then our selection of the initial set of definitions and axioms was bad. Well, this is no problem. We can simply make some new choices. If the match is perfect, then our choices of the initial set of definitions and axioms must comparable to Nature’s choices, perhaps, identical to its. This methodology is deductive in essence although the comparison can be done in an inductive manner. Thus, this new methodology is not constructing one theory or many theories. Any derived theory or laws in this way need not be experimentally tested but must be compared to the known corresponding theory or laws.

With the complete freedom of selecting the initial set of definitions and axioms, we should compare this Fictitious Universe to the entire Nature Universe, not just physics universe. Thus, I will list out some areas of importance in this comparison.

A. Making contact with all known physics, that is, it must “derive” the following physics,

1. Newtonian physics

2. Relativities

3. Quantum physics

4. All known particles (the quark world)

5. etc..

B. Making contact with all known mathematics, it must “derive” the “number theory”, at least.

C. Making contact with all known phenomena, the rise of “life” and “intelligence”, at least.

D. Making contact with all intellectual world, the philosophy, and theology, etc..

Of course, this is not an exhaustive list but is a good starting point.

Yet, this new methodology is not a result of a wild dream just now. I have worked on this many years. Thus, there are many “results” available for comparison already. So, instead of discussing of the initial set of selection, I will show some comparisons first and then trace back to their starting points.

The first result of this new methodology is the “Prequark Chromodynamics" (available at http://www.prequark.org/ , no longer online ).  Prequark Chromodynamics is a direct consequence of a Fictitious Universe and has nothing to do with the Nature universe. The key point here is a beauty-contest, which one can describe the quark and lepton world better. Obviously, the Prequark Chromodynamics can reproduce the entire quark and lepton world and is a good language for describing the quark and lepton world. Can Prequark Chromodynamics be tested experimentally? An experimental test is not required in this new methodology.

Neutrino oscillation, Mystery no more

For neutrino and neutrino oscillation, the Wikipedia article “Neutrino oscillation” (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation ) has provided a good description, and thus, I will not repeat them here.

Now, neutrino oscillation is an observed fact, and thus, it demands that neutrino(s) are having “rest” mass. This demand puts Standard Model (SM) in jeopardy as there is no way to give neutrino a rest mass in SM’s framework. The Higgs mechanism which gives quarks and electron rest masses will not work for neutrino as no right-handed neutrino is predicted (in SM) or observed.

Then, the LSND (Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector) anomaly was announced and it hinted the existence of the fourth (a sterile) neutrino. However, this LSND anomaly was ruled out later. Yet, recently, a new hint for a different kind of sterile neutrino (perhaps, a Majorana type) was observed, and a search program for it is ongoing (see the article “MINOS Search for Sterile Neutrinos” at http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3455 ). If there is a sterile neutrino (whatever kind it is), a seesaw mechanism can give flavor neutrinos their rest masses via this sterile neutrino. If Nature indeed did this, we should send an email to that Nature engineer a better design. Why should we invent two mass giving mechanisms? one for neutrino(s), another for all other particles (both hadrons and leptons [excluding neutrino leptons]).

All above issues arose from the fact of neutrino oscillation. Thus, if the neutrino oscillation mechanism is fully understood, then all those issues will be resolved. The nutshell of neutrino oscillation is that whereby a neutrino created with a specific lepton flavor (electron, muon or tau) can later be measured to have a different flavor. We can envision this process with three cases analogy.

Case 1 --- Mr. A (one person) has multiple personalities.

A1 --- a nice guy.

A2 --- a murder.

A3 --- a cry baby.

Case 2 --- there are “three” gentlemen.

Mr. B --- a nice guy.

Mr. C --- a murder.

Mr. D --- a cry baby.

It is not too hard for us to imagine the case 1 oscillation (Os1). It is a bit difficult for us to imagine the case 2 oscillation (Os2). Case 2 can happen only if there is an “Uncertainty force”( UF) which makes the case 1 and case 2 to be indistinguishable, the Os3. However, the known “uncertainty principle” is, seemingly, not the force for the above UF. Thus, if case 2 can happen, we need a new UF. Which will be the case (among those three oscillations) for neutrinos? We should review the equation which predicted the neutrino oscillation.

(Fe,  Fm,  Ft) = MM * (Me, Mm, Mt)

(Fe,  Fm,  Ft) is the flavor vector (or matrix) for three flavor neutrinos.

(Me, Mm, Mt) is the rest mass vector (or matrix) for three flavor neutrinos.

MM is the mixing matrix which connects the two vectors above.

The above equation is identical to a transformation between two reference frames, such as,

(X, Y, Z) = TM * (U, V, W)

(X, Y, Z) and (U, V, W) are two different reference frames, and TM is transformation matrix.

With this understanding, Fe (electron neutrino), Fm (muon neutrino) and Ft (tau neutrino) are no longer viewed as particles but are axes of a reference frame for a “field”, FN field (Flavor Neutrino field). Every point in this FN field is a vector which has three components (from three axes). Thus, the neutrino oscillation is simply the reference frame transformation from the flavor frame to the rest mass frame. Of course, if the Nature needs no frame transformation, there should not be any oscillation. As the oscillation is a fact, then the Nature demands a frame transformation during its evolution (the passing of time). That is, the Nature demands the existence of two reference frames, and any “point” (either a quark or a neutrino) of a “field” must flip-flop between these two frames. This flip-flop process is the source for giving rise to mass and gravity in “Super Unified Theory” (SUT), and it is described in the article “Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part nine” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-nine.html ). That is, one process (not two) gives raise the rest mass to all particles (including neutrinos).

Furthermore, the recent LHC data has ruled out the fourth generation of quark. Then, a fourth neutrino (sterile or not) will make a very bad design for Nature. In “Prequark Chromodynamics” the “generation” is treated as “color force” (gene-color force) which obeys the color rules, having only three primary colors. The muon decay [μ− →  (e−)  + ( ν e)  + ( ν μ) ] is, in fact, driven by this gene-color force. The detailed description of this muon decay in terms of gene-color is available at http://www.prequark.org/pq11.htm (no longer online).

Note: The fourth generation of quarks or leptons was ruled out theoretically in the article "Law of Creation" (http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm , no longer online) 20 years ago; it states, "In fact, the number of generations of elementary particles can be derived theoretically ...Equation ... gives rise to 64 subspaces. With Eq. (2), only 48 subspaces can manifest into particles; 24 of them are antiparticles. Because that the space is trisected into three seats in the Prequark Chromodynamics, only 8 elementary particles can be generated with three seats for each generation (2 quarks with three colors each [=6] and 2 leptons). Thus, only three generations of the particle can ever exist, no more or less, period. This is as simple as 1, 2, or 3 because of 24/8 = 3."

With the gene-color of “Prequark Chromodynamics” and the mass-giving mechanism of SUT (flip-flap in space-time sheet), both the neutrino mass and the neutrino oscillation become the direct consequences and mystery no more.

Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part nine

{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 (no longer online).

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 experimental particle physicist "Tommaso Dorigo" quoted a passage in his blog, “If we had not previously introduced it [Higgs boson] to generate the heavy boson masses, we would have been forced to invent it now to guarantee renormalizability."

Indeed, for Standard Model, Higgs mechanism is the foundation for making SM meaningful by providing a mechanism to give particles their mass. However, the final hiding place for any Higgs (standard one or the SUSY ones) is shrinking fast. Before the end of this year, a final verdict on Higgs fate (live or die) will be determined.  Now, many people are coming out in bashing the Higgs idea. On October 11, 2011, Vladimir Kalitvianski (Theoretical Nuclear Physicist) said in Tommaso's blog, "That's what I say - Higgs is a patch of a bad construction."  In the book "Linguistics Manifesto"(ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1, published in December 2010, available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble), it emphasized twice about Higgs being a bad idea. Again, in this blog, I have written many posts about the Higgs being a bad idea since May 6, 2011 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/higgs-boson-bad-idea.html ). Yet, the point here must not be about who was the first pointing out that Higgs was a bad idea.

In fact, for any model, it needs a Higgs-like mechanism to provide the Higgs-effect (providing mass for particles) although the Higgs mechanism itself is wrong in its construction.

Without using detailed equations, the Higgs mechanism can be roughly described with the following analogy.

This universe is divided into two parts, the space-time sheet, and a particle zoo.

Every particle is an Achilles-like creature, with hands and feet, but it is massless.  In order for any particle to get a mass, Higgs invented a Higgs ball (boson) with “mass”. When Achilles bounces this Higgs ball between his left and right hands, this ball’s changing momentum gives Achilles an apparent mass. How big a particle’s mass is depending on how hard it plays with this Higgs ball. And, this is the Higgs mechanism.

If the nature is indeed constructed with this Higgs mechanism, it is still a very bad idea, and we should send an email to the Creator giving him a better idea. Why is this Higgs idea so bad?

1. It is a unique particle, completely different from all other particles. That is, it takes a “special” order for its construction. This is wasteful and tiresome.

2. Every particle with mass needs to carry one Higgs around. This seemed stupid.

3. There is a better idea than the Higgs invention.

Remember, there is a space-time sheet. If this space-time sheet has a “step”, and this Achilles particle is jumping up-and-down and down-and-up with its feet endlessly at this “step”, then this process is, in fact, identical to the Higgs mechanism with only the difference of playing different balls, one the Higgs ball (must be specially ordered) and the other the space-time sheet ball (already here).  How big a mass for a particle depends on how deep it sinks into this space-time sheet. That is, the mass of a particle shows the degree of confinement of that particle being bound to the space-time sheet, and this can be called as gravity. As every particle is trapped in the space-time sheet, there is no need to carry a special Higgs ball just to get a mass.

Perhaps, you already noticed that this Gravity-mechanism requires a “step” in the space-time sheet for a particle to jump up-and-down (providing the momentum changes) endlessly. This “step” is the result that the space-time sheet is, in fact, made of two pieces, and the particle is flip-flop between these two endlessly. The detail of this space-time sheet “step” is described in the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge.” (at http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm ).

Nobel Prize 2011, Accelerating expansion of the universe was predicted in 1984

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for the work on "the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae", as this discovery was like 'applying the brakes on a car', giving us insights into universe’s evolution and possibly its ultimate fate.

Yet, the driving force behind the acceleration is unknown; it is guessed as vacuum energy (in this context called dark energy). In Particle Physics, there are two candidates for this vacuum energy, the quantum fluctuations and the spontaneous symmetry breaking. Another idea is about an inflationary phase in the early Universe, breaking certain symmetries, spontaneously generating a time-dependent, huge vacuum energy density that during a very short time made the Universe expand enormously. A similar effect may still be at work as the force for this accelerating expansion of the universe.

In fact, the fact that this universe is expanding with acceleration was predicted in the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325); it wrote, “During the expansion period, the space of the universe increased when the time goes forward, ¼ of the time quanta’s energy goes into space (vacuum) which acts as an energy bank. … all mass (energy) of the universe is coming from the time [quanta].  … Therefore, when the big bang momentum was exhausted out by the gravity, the space expansion will slow down. And, the density of this universe will increase slowly (3/4 of time’s energy goes into matter) and finally reach the critical density.” (Chapter 5 --- The future of the universe, page 42). 

In the article "Initial Condition of Universe" (written in 1994, available at http://www.prequark.org/Initial.htm, no longer online ), it wrote, "Why shall and how can space expand? The space expansion is the essence of this new physics, described with Equation Zero. The bouncing between real and ghost time creates 64 subspaces. A quarter of these 64 subspaces are true space, pure vacuum. Three-quarter of these 64 subspaces are particles, baryonic matter. So, when time is bouncing forward, the space is expanded, and the matter is created. In short, the Big Bang is not an isolated single event in the long ago history of our universe but is only a beginning of a continuous process."

The above passages clearly state that the force drives the expanding universe (in addition to the initial big bang momentum) is the “time quanta energy”. Up to now (October 8, 2011), time is not viewed as quanta by the mainstream physics community. Yet, “time quanta” is the essence of the “Super Unified Theory (SUT).” Not only is the accelerating expansion of the universe the direct consequence of time quanta (SUT), but also are the roots for the theoretical calculation of alpha (the electron fine structure constant, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-four.html ) and the theoretical foundation for Prequark Chromodynamics (http://www.prequark.org/ ).

In fact, many theories (including wrong theories) can predict an accelerating expansion of the universe. In SUT, the prediction of an accelerating expansion of the universe is only a small part of a big framework. The validity of that prediction does not rely on any direct observation (such as the works of  Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess) but rely on the validity of the entire framework, the theoretical calculation of alpha, the Prequark Chromodynamics, etc..