G-string, the final nail seals the Higgs coffin

{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 the 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.}

In the article (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6002 ), Peter Woit wrote, “…  since the story of the last thirty years is not one of evidence for string  [M-] theory unification accumulating, but the opposite: the more we learn about string [M-] theory, the less likely it seems that it can predict anything.  …

String [M-] theory unification is an idea now discredited in the scientific community, but getting propped up by TV programs and prizes from Russian billionaires. …

I actually know many people who work on string theory who have given up on the idea of getting the Standard Model out of it. The most common attitude I hear among string theorists is that the ways people used to hope to connect it to the SM have failed."

In fact, there is a litmus test to settle the above debate. Einstein said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother”.  In addition to simply agree with Einstein 100%, I would like to give it a theoretical support with the following points.

A. Whatever the “foundation” of this universe is, this universe evolves via the self-similarity transformation from that foundation. However complicated a “physics law” is, it is always only a “foundation” of the higher tier manifestations. That is, the essence of that physics law is expressed in every piece of the higher tier “expression”. If we cannot use a “story” which is easily understood by the old grandmother, we did not truly understand that complicated physics law, period.

B.  In general, people view the linguistics as languages. I will define the linguistics universe with three parts.

a. A meta-space --- it encompasses the events and objects in the physical universe.

b. Languages --- they try to describe the stories in that meta-space.

c. A meaning-space --- the meaning of the meta-space story is understood by people.

In general, a meta-space story could be understood differently by different people who have different worldviews. However, we could exclude the culture element and deal the issue strictly linguistically, that is, in terms of translation among languages only. Then, the meaning-space for all languages is identical.

Now, for all languages (including mathematics), they share two identical continents (meta-space and meaning-space). That is, “all” languages are permanently linked among one another by these two continents. And, every language can be “translated” to any other language. Math is the “simplest” language in linguistics. When one cannot translate a math equation into a natural language, he does for sure not truly understand that math equation.

Now, the true “solid” facts in physics are,

a. The Planck data (dark energy, dark matter, visible matter and Neff = 3), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html

b. There are 48 known elementary particles.

If we can show these two facts to the old grandmother, we have understood the essences of these two physics facts. The following is the explanation.

Grandmother, this universe is very simple, just the same as an amphitheater which has 4 parts.

1. It sits in a big “field” (open space, dark energy ).

2. It has an audiences section (not shining, dark mass).

3. It has a stage (for actors, visible mass).

4. It has a backstage (for directors, screenplay writers, etc.; anti-matter)

The open field carries a tremendous amount of dark energy. The chairs in all section(s) carry a lot of dark mass. Of course, there are three types of chairs (L1, L2, L3), one for each “section”. Every chair is made of a piece of tree trunk (a line-string, that is).  A line-string has three parts, the two ends and one middle section which connects the two ends. Thus, the three parts of this line-string are distinguishable and can be written as (a, b, c) in mathematical symbols. Yet, there is a special property of this line-string. When its two ends join together, its three parts are no longer distinguishable. It works just like following the “color rules”. Thus, I will use (red, yellow, blue) or (r, y, b) to replace the old (a, b, c) symbol. So, every piece of tree trunk (line-string) can sit three audiences, three actors or three directors, etc..

Now, we have an empty amphitheater. With some “people” come in, it will come alive. And, its liveliness (dynamics) can be described with some formulas. Let’s use,

i. A (audience, actor; as a person)

ii. V (vacant seat)

So, by knowing the seating situations, we can calculate the entire dynamics of the theater. Of course, every person who comes in needs pay a “charge”. As he sits on only 1/3 of the tree trunk, he pays only 1/3 of “charge”. The status of every chair (tree trunk) can be identified with a color system. After “A” occupies a seat, that seat color is blocked (A being opaque). Of course, V (being a vacant seat) is transparent. Now, the status of the seating situation can be identified with the following system.

      1. (V, V, V) = (r, y, b) = white = colorless, as V is transparent.

      2. (A, A, A) = colorless = white, as A is opaque.

      3. (V, A, A) = (r, A, A) = red;  (A, V, A) = yellow;  (A, A, V) = blue

      4, (V, V, A) = (r, y, A) = blue (complement of r + Y)

With the above, we can identify “all” possible seating situation in the theater. Just for the fun, I will call a tree trunk as G-string and give some funny names (no special meaning to them) for those different types of sitting situation as below.

String 1 =  (V,  A,  A 1) = {1^st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.

String 2 =  (A,  V, V  1) = {1^st , red, 1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red anti-down quark.

String 3 =  (A,  A, V  1) =  {1^st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

…

String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1^st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).

String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1^st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.

String 9 = (V,  A,  A 2) {2^nd  , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

…

String 48 = -(V, V, V 3)  - {3^rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.

Not only is this description of an amphitheater (the G-strings) definitely understood by the old grandmother, but it has accomplished the task of getting the SM (Standard Model) out, which was an impossible task for the M-string theory for over 40 years.

This amphitheater model also provides the calculation for Planck CMB data 1: (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82)

Seven (7) G1 strings are the actors on stages, visible mass.
The e-neutrino, G2, G3 strings (total 17) are audience, dark mass 1.
The anti-matters (total 24) are on the backstage (directors), dark mass 2.

So, the d/v (dark/visible ratio) = [41 (100 – W) % / 7]

When, W = 9 % (the dark radiation, the ratio of dark mass melting into dark energy), d/v = 5.33

[(Z – V) x (100 – W) %] /5.33 = V, V is visible mass of this universe; Z = (1/3).

[(33.33 –V) x .91]/5.33 = V

V= 5.69048 / 1.17073 = 4.86   (while the Planck data is 4.82),

D (Dark mass) = [(Z – 4.86) x (100 – W) %] = [(33.33 -4.86) x .91] = 25.90 (while the Planck data = 25.8)

See, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ for details.

By passing this grandmother test, the G-string is definitely a foundation for the Standard Model. Yet, the G-string rules out the Higgs hallucination (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/higgs-chicken-higgs-egg-and-higgs.html ) and is the last nail on Higgs coffin.

Higgs chicken, Higgs egg and Higgs hallucination

{Note (added on April 2, 2015, months before the LHC run II):

There should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, see 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.}

After the discovery of a 125 Gev boson last July (2012) at LHC, it is now called as Higgs boson by all presentations which discuss that new particle. Thus, I must show that the Higgs hallucination is simply fairy tales with the following stories, as there is a good another model available.

Story one:

Mother: Hi, baby, it is the time to hit the sack.

Baby: I am still working on my homework, the neutron decay. How can a three string particle (u, d, d) become 5 strings (u, u, d, e, anti-e-neutrino), especially a “d” had a sex-change for becoming a “u”?

Mother: This is the most famous fairy tale. Here comes an angel who gave the “d” a kick on its butt, and it comes the “u”.

Baby: Who is the angel?

Mother: Who? Who?  The “W”.

Baby: Then, where are this e and the neutrino coming from?

Mother: Oh. The “W” angel flies away as the e and the neutrino.

Baby: Where was the “W” angel coming from?

Mother: There is a Higgs chicken (field) which is omnipresent, and it can lay a Higgs egg anywhere at any time of its choosing. The “W” angel was hiding in the Higgs egg all this time.

Baby: Thanks, Mon. This is a great fairy tale. I now can sleep in peace.

Story two:

Brother: Mon, your fairy tale is very interesting. But, I learned a different story about the neutron decay.

Mother: There cannot be any different story. This fairy tale is the “Standard Model”. But, go ahead tell me your story.

Brother: Every system consists of three parts.

i. An envelope which divides it into two regions.

ii. The “internal” --- with some members, having some relationships among them (the dynamics)

iii. The “external” --- with a sea of …

For the convenience, we call these members as “chairs” which the dynamics as “music-chair game”. And, the external sea is expressed as a sea of (virtue) chairs.

When one of the internal chairs is captured (arrested) by external (virtue) chairs, the system breaks up (must decay). If the external (virtue) chairs [the vacuum energy] lack the energy to arrest an internal chair of a system, that system will not decay. These can be summarized as the “Show-will-never-end” principle:  If the music-chair-game can be played forever “internally” (self-playing), the system will never decay. Otherwise, the system must open its door and let the external chairs coming, which leads the decay. With these, it is quite easy to show that Proton will not decay at the current vacuum energy level. Thus, I will only talk about the neutron decay.

Mother: Interesting concept but making sense. But, what is this got to do with the neutron decay which is wholly understood with the Higgs tale?

Brother: The Higgs hallucination is truly a fairy tale. The true process is that the (u, d1, d2) picks up a virtue d-pair (d3, -d3), the vacuum disturbance.  And it forms a 5-quark blob. Then,

Step 1: (d1, -d3) got together

Step 2: (d1, -d3) turns into (u1, -u3), that is, a vacuum state transforms into another vacuum state.

Step 3: (d3, -u3) got together. Then, this blob has a genetic exchange and flies away as the e and the neutrino.

 So, (u, d1, d2) decaies into as (u, u1, d2, e, neutrino).

Mon, you have mistaken this vacuum transformation blob as the Higgs egg.

Mother: Your story follows all physics laws, and it makes sense. But it is wrong because that it is not the Standard Model.

Story three:

Baby: I don’t like your “vacuum blob” story. It is too rational and too cold. I like the fairy tale, not because of its being the Standard Model but because that it is “Magical”. A Higgs chicken (field) is omnipresent and can lay Higgs egg any time at any place at its choosing. Then, out it pops a “W”-angel when neutron got out of from bondage. Furthermore, no gadget thus far (including the LHC) in this world is able to distinguish your “vacuum blob” from the Higgs egg. That is, that fairy egg can be as real as the “vacuum blob” reality, and there is no gadget data can prove it otherwise.

Brother: Hi, baby, for the gadget testing concern, you might be right for the next decade or two. But, in sports, any tie can be easily broken by “overtime”, the tie-break-litmus test.

The Standard Model is absolutely correct in terms of that entire gadget testing data. But, as soon as it goes out of its baby crib, SM fails from left to right, from top to bottom. It (SM) cannot derive most of the “parameters” it used in the model (such as, the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, the Alpha, etc.). Furthermore, it fails on all the following known physics facts;

i.  Planck data --- dark energy (accelerating expansion of this universe), dark matter, Neff = 3 (minimum), etc.

ii. Neutrino oscillations

iii. Proton’s stability

iv. Guidelines for SUSY (with s-particle)

v. About gravity

vi. Unification between quantum and determinism.

That is, the Standard Model is only the hodgepodge of the gadget data.  And, simply it has “no” theoretical “base” for deriving those parameters and for connecting to those other physics facts.

Thus, those other facts above become the overtime litmus tests. Anyone who can solve any one of those other facts or derive those free parameters is the winner of this contest. 

Baby: Yet, most of those issues are controversial and cannot be decided by the current gadget testing.

Brother: Indeed. But, the Cabibbo - Weinberg angles and the Alpha are only three “numbers”. The only gadgets needed for testing them are “paper and pencil” which are in the hands of every first grader. There will be absolutely no controversy about whether an equation for calculating one of them is correct or not. Thus, we can simply choose Alpha as this overtime Litmus test, to be the “first” criterion for the correct final physics.

Baby: That is great. But, verifying the “prediction” of a theory was the only criterion for physics theory thus far. How can you convince physicists to accept your overtime idea?

Brother: Most of the theory is the “extension” of known physics. Thus, it must “predict” something new in order to be credible. But, when a “system” is constructed from a “base” which contains no “known” physics of any kind, it is credible only if it can “reproduce” all known physics, not just any puny “prediction”.  That is, a system has “outcomes (or consequences)” while theory has “prediction”. And, there is a super strong requirement for “base”. It must not contain any “known physics”, that is, no known physics is “put-in” into the base. Thus, “reproduce all known physics from a base (without containing any known physics)” is the second “Overtime test”, the second criterion.

Baby: Must a base be verified by gadget testing?

Brother: No, no, and no! The “base” needs no verification. If a “wrong” base produces a system which can reproduce all known physics, it is a “good” base.

Baby: Just heard in the news that a “W”-einstein had discovered the final physics theory. Do you know anything about it?

Brother: No, never heard about it. If he can pass two tests,

a. Litmus test --- deriving the Alpha with a physics equation

b. A base is able to reproduce, at least, the known 48 elementary particles

then, he could be on the path to the final physics. Otherwise, even the “Z”-einstein won’t do any good.

Baby: Obviously, the Higgs story failed the first overtime litmus test. Can you derive Alpha from a base (without containing any known physics)?

Brother: Yet, see the article “Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, mystery no more!” at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html

Note: this article was initially posted on June 1, 2013, at http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-forces-of-nature/the-strength-of-the-known-forces/#comment-61734 

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 (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 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.