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/ No longer online), 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 (no longer online), 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/ (no longer online).

Quantum algebra and axiomatic physics

Since the 1930s, quantum mechanics was viewed as one of the two foundations of physics, more fundamental than the classical physics. Seemingly, without adding “quantum” in front of a physics theory, it cannot be a viable theory.  Yet, besides all those quantum-theories, what is the ontological essence about “quantum”?

In general, the Uncertainty Principle can be interpreted in two descriptions.

One --- In the article “Ball on a Spring (Classic vs. Quantum physics), http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ball-on-a-spring-quantum/”, it wrote, “A is the amplitude of oscillation (which we are free to choose to be as large or small as we want).  …

In quantum mechanics, things change.  At first glance (and that’s the only glance we need, really, …) there’s really only one thing that changes, and that is the statement that ‘we are free to choose [the amplitude] to be as large or small as we want.’  It turns out this isn’t true.  And correspondingly, the energy stored in the oscillation cannot be chosen arbitrarily.

 …

A single quantum of oscillation wouldn’t even make the ball move by a distance of an atomic nucleus! No wonder we can’t observe this quantization!!  If the ball moves an amount that we can see, it has an enormous number of quanta of oscillation — and for such large values of n, we can make A be anything we want, as far as we can tell; see Figure 2. We can’t measure A nearly well enough to notice such fine restrictions on its precise value.”

In this description, although the quantum is the foundation, it becomes insignificant at the large scale which is ruled by determinism. That is, there is no conflict or contradiction between quantum facts as a foundation in a small region and the rule of determinism which rules the large scale.  

It says again, “… Even when there are no quanta of oscillation in the oscillator at all — when n = 0 — there’s still some amount of energy in the oscillator.  This is called zero-point energy, and it is due to a basic jitter, a basic unpredictability, that is at the heart of quantum mechanics.”

This shows that the “quantum zero” is seemingly significantly different from the mathematics zero which is a “static zero, the foundation of determinism”. In the quantum region, zero cannot be defined at a specific space-time point, and it can only be defined by averaging out a range of space-time points. The larger this range is, the closer the quantum zero approaches to the mathematics zero. The largest space-time range is this physical universe, and the quantum zero for it is the Cosmology constant, which is the best known measured “Physical zero”.  And, it is almost identical to the mathematics zero.  Again, there is no conflict or contradiction between the quantum zero and the determinism (the mathematics zero). Furthermore, no any kind of quantum dancing is able to help the quantum zero escaping from the confinement of the deterministic zero.

Two --- It can be stated with the following statement.

Statement A --- Quantum mechanics doesn't allow us to predict anything else than probabilities. So there's always some uncertainty about the answer to the question.”

If statement A is absolute, then it itself is a statement of determinism. If we add a statement B,

Statement B --- The validity of statement A depends on a probability.

Then, is the system of “statement A + statement B” absolute?

In fact, regardless of how many statements are added to the above, there is no way of any kind (even by God) to construct a Quantum-system to escape from the grip of the determinism at the end. Is the recently discovered Higgs-like particle a quantum particle? Are we positively determined that we have caught its tail?  I call this “quantum-ness paradox”.

With the two points above, it is clear that the important-ness of quantum-ness was overhyped in the past 80 years. I can show this more with the following three points.

A. Quantum algebra:

In mathematics,  sugar + sugar = more sugar, and one apple + one apple = two apples (not two oranges). But, in quantum algebra, there is a significantly different rule.

               Quantum + quantum = deterministic, such as,

       Quantum particle + quantum particle = deterministic particle, for examples,

                   Proton + electron = hydrogen atom

                  Hydrogen atom + hydrogen atom = hydrogen molecule

                   Two hydrogen molecules + one oxygen atom = water (wholly deterministic).

In fact, any kind of quantum dancing (fields, operators, etc.) will eventually lead to the determinism, and there is no way escape from it. It does not take too many steps to erase the quantum-ness.

B. All important quantum parameters can be derived from the axiomatic physics deterministically.

The most important quantum parameters for the construction of this universe are the Cabibbo angle, the Weinberg angle and the Fine structure constant (Alpha).  And, they can all be derived deterministically in the axiomatic physics. Please read the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html” for details.

C. Both proton and neutron must be Turing computers in order to give rise to a biologic universe. Please read the article “Quantum behavior vs. the Cellular Automaton determinism, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/08/quantum-behavior-vs-cellular-automaton.html” for details.

With the five points above, I have concluded that the quantum-ness is only a naughty child of the supreme Daddy of Axiomatic physics. 

Quantum behavior vs. the Cellular Automaton determinism

In the article " ’t Hooft on Cellular Automata and String Theory (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5022)",  it wrote, "Gerard ’t Hooft in recent years has been pursuing some idiosyncratic ideas about quantum mechanics; ...
His latest version is last month’s Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings, which starts with cellular automata in 1+1 dimensions and somehow gets a quantized superstring out of it.  …
Personally, I find it difficult to get at all interested in this.  ...
Looking at the results he has, there’s very little of modern physics there, including pretty much none of the standard model (which ’t Hooft himself had a crucial role in developing).  ...
Basing everything on cellular automata seems to me extremely unpromising: you’re throwing out deep and powerful structures for something very simple and easy to understand, but with little inherent explanatory power. That’s my take on this, ..."


Seemingly, the key objection of the author is his belief that the quantum behavior is not compatible with the Cellular Automata determinism while the fact that ’t Hooft’s inability to make contact with the known physics (mainly the Standard Model) played only a small part in forming his opinion.


In fact, many attributes of any quantum particle are following exact determinism. Regardless of the complexity of the proton’s internal structure (with zillions gluons, quarks and anti-quarks dancing randomly), the final outcome cannot go beyond the simple (u, u, d). With all those great quantum mystic power, no proton can acquire a different mass or different electric charge or spin. With all those great mystic quantum dancing powers, the determinism is the Supreme boss. There are exactly three quark colors, not three + uncertainty. There are exactly three generations, not three + uncertainty. The quantum mystic dancing power is just a small child of the Supreme Daddy of determinism.


The most important determined attribute for both proton and neutron is that they both are Turing computers, and this fact is described in detail in the article “The Rise of Biological Life (http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm )” which was written in 1993.