Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part eight

{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.}

With the recent data from LHC, the Higgs game is de facto over although some final verifications on a bump around the 120 Gev are still pending. And, down into the tube, it also goes the supersymmetry fantasy.  Now, the only viable theory is the Prequark Chromodynamics (PC), as the M-theory is only a subset of the PC.

While Higgs was not officially ruled out by Prequark Chromodynamics, there are, at least, four big reasons for Higgs being a very bad idea.

1. Higgs is not needed in Prequark Chromodynamics.

2. Higgs (if being a rock bottom particle) violates the bottoming out principle, explained in the book “Linguistics Manifesto” (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1), available at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

3. Higgs is useless to link Standard Model to other realities, the Life sphere (pop), the Mathematics Universe (pop), etc..

4. This physical universe sits on three pillars, 1) the Cabibbo angle (θ_c) ~ 13.5 degrees, 2) the Weinberg angle (θ_W ) ~ 28.74 degrees and 3) the Alpha ["electron fine structure constant" (Beta = 1/alpha = 137.0359 … )]. Higgs can do nothing to derive them while they can be easily derived in Prequark Chromodynamics (see the post http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-four.html  ).

As the Prequark Chromodynamics did not become a mainstream theory, I should give a brief outline of its history here. The first paper on PC was written on December 4, 1979. Then, a book “Super Unified Theory --- the Foundations of Science” was copyrighted on April 18, 1984 (TX  1-323-231). Many reviews about the Prequark Chromodynamics were listed in that book. I will list some key reviews below.

a. Jon Machta (in March 2004) invited me to join the faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

b. Jainendra K. Jain (in February 2004) invited me to join the faculty at PennState.

c. Steven Weinberg (in 1996) --- the outlook for Prequark is not good.

d. Alan Harvey Guth (in 1994) --- it [prequark] is very interesting.

e. John Archibald Wheeler (in 1994) --- it [prequark] has no test point.

f. Sidney D. Drell (in 1983) --- invited me doing research work at SLAC.

g. The Physical Review (D. Nordstrom, in October 1983) --- We have made no judgment on whether your work is correct or not, only that the subject matter is not suitable for the Physical Review.

Up to this point, the Prequark Chromodynamics is, in fact, just a one-man show.  You all missed this great boat for the past thirty years. Now, I would like to invite you all to join in.

Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part seven

{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.}

When the epistemology of physics depends on a gadget (such as Tevatron or LHC), it is a gadget physics. When the epistemology of physics depends on its contacting to realities (such as the issues of rising of life, of intelligence, of mathematics, etc.), it is the reality physics. Thus, the controlling principle for the reality physics is common sense.

There are two good things about common sense; 1) it can be understood by everyone, including physicists, 2) it can easily discuss the BIG picture in addition to the nitty-gritty.

At this moment of great discovery at LHC and Tevatron, I would like to offer some common sense to paint a big picture.

The works of web page and websites are now common sense knowledge. Every website has a home page, and it could have some internal pages, often hyperlinked from the home page. Sometimes, those internal pages come out as Popup Windows, and I would like to call them as pops.

Our universe can be viewed as a website. The Big Bang is the home page, the Grand Daddy Pop (the GD pop). Under this GD pop, there are a few other pops, the Life pop (life sphere), the Intelligence pop, the Linguistics pop, the Mathematics pop, etc..

Every pop (page) has, at least, two types of context; 1) some texts, 2) some hyperlinks to the other pops. For some internal pops, they can be the end of links without any outgoing links. However, for the GD pop (being the Grand Daddy, the home page), it must have outgoing links to reach all internal pops. In fact, it is those outgoing links defining the GD pop.

There is no need to prove that the Big Bang is the GD pop. If anyone disagrees with this, then so be it. As a GD pop, it must have links to all other pops. That is, the vitality of a GD pop “theory” can be easily checked with the following checklist.

a. Does it link to (give rise to) the Life pop?

b. Does it link to (give rise to) the Intelligence pop?

c. etc..

This Big pop picture was ignored for a long time as our physics theories were too primitive, purely as a gadget physics which ignores all the common sense realities. Now, we are reaching the gate of a final theory,  and these pop links must become the final checklist. Physics can no longer hide in an isolated page without dealing the issue of contacting the realities. 

Does Higgs encompass all those pop links? Even with a real Higgs boson, it does not provide a link to realities, the rising of life, of intelligence and of Mathematics. The Higgs boson is simply a bad idea even if there were a real Higgs.

Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part six

{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.}





There are a few things certain about the Standard Model (SM).

Certainty 1: SM is not complete, that is, with a big hole. There are two ways to deal with any hole, plugging it up or going into it. By plugging it up, it becomes complete. By going into it, we will find a new universe.

So, what is this Higgs, a plug or a tunnel?

Certainty 2: SM roams in the space-time, not a base for generating space-time. So, if SM becomes a complete sheet (without any hole) by finding a Higgs, it still does not encompass the space-time. Thus, finding a Higgs plug will not make SM a better physics theory. If this Higgs plug cannot plug the entire hole (SM still incomplete with a real Higgs), then this Higgs is not truly important for a vital theory.

Can Higgs be a tunnel? If it is, then it should have an internal structure.

There are two types of internal structure, with sub-particles or with pre-particles. The sub-particle is, in general, smaller than the particle. On the other hand, the pre-particle can be infinitely larger than the particle. For example, a visible iceberg is composed of three pre-particles, 1) a big chunk of ice with 10 times of its size, 2) a big body of water, 3) a big space encompassing the two above. Each of these pre-particles is bigger than the visible iceberg, and some can be infinitely bigger.

If quark is only a protrusion of the space-time sheet, then there is a lower tier under SM.  That is, the hole of SM is actually linked to its lower tier, the space-time. In this way,  SM becomes a major part of the whole as its hole is not a weakness but is the key link to completeness.

With the above points, whether there is a real Higgs or not at this point is no longer important. Higgs cannot and does not play an important part in a final theory. Although there were zillions reasons for needing a Higgs in the history,  for breaking the electroweak gauge symmetry, for providing mass to quarks and leptons through their Yukawa couplings, etc., all those needs are now pointing to a new physics which can satisfy those needs without a Higgs, especially if there is no Higgs (almost a reality now). Prequark Chromodynamics (http://www.prequark.org/ , no longer online) is just such a new physics.

Higgs boson, a bad idea, part five

{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.}





In the past week (July 20 to July 28), there are two high energy physics conferences taking place.

1. European Physical Society meeting on high energy physics ( http://eps-hep2011.eu/  ) in Grenoble, France.

2. The Particles and Nuclei International Conference ( http://indico.lns.mit.edu/indico/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=0#20110725  ) at MIT in Cambridge, MA.

They are reported by John Conway (Professor at UC Davis) in his blog post "The LHC, the Tevatron, and the Higgs Boson" (at  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/07/27/the-lhc-the-tevatron-and-the-higgs-boson/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverBlogs+%28Discover+Blogs%29&utm_content=Twitter  ). It reported the results from two experiments,  ATLAS ( https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic  ) and CMS ( https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResults  )

The objectives of these two experiments are searching for the Higgs boson and for evidence that there may be supersymmetric partners.

With the current data, there is no hint of supersymmetry,  especially below 1 TeV.  And, it is ruling out a Higgs boson with mass anywhere from 150 GeV to 450 GeV by LHC data.

While the best predicted value for the Higgs boson mass is a good deal less than 80 GeV,  the LEP 2 experiments excluded a standard model Higgs boson with mass less than 114.4 GeV.  In fact, the Tevatron data also excluded any Higgs in the 157 to 183 GeV range. 

Now, the only place for Higgs to hide is from 114 to 157 GeV range, and this can be easily covered by the Tevatron which is in operation over 20 years. In this energy range, there is no need for the giant machine LHC. Yet, at this critical juncture, the Tevatron is scheduled to close down in two months.

In his post, John Conway made another comment.

"The theme of the PANIC conference was ... , to see if there is an inside, to see if they have substructure [in quark]. Naturally, to do the experiment we smash quarks together and see if we see any hint that there is something smaller inside, which would manifest itself as an excess of particle jets coming out sideways to the beam, ...

But in the first graph here all we see is a smooth spectrum, agreeing exceedingly well with the predictions, extending out to huge energies…no bumps, no excess in the tails, and no excess of jets coming out sideways. In one fell swoop, we’ve extended the limit on the size of quarks down by a factor of three or four. As far as we can tell, quarks are pointlike."

He is, in fact, pointing out that quark has no internal structure. His conclusion is the result of a preconceived premise --- the point particle has no internal structure. This preconceived notion is, of course, wrong. In my post ( The source of the “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking”, part 3. http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_11.html    ), I have shown that every geometric point has a very complicated internal structure.

For the Standard Model, there is only one fact --- it is not complete, that is, with a big hole. The Higgs particle is intended to be the plug for plugging up that hole.

Standard Model roams in the space-time, not the base for generating the space-time. And, it  does not encompass the gravity. If the Higgs can, indeed, plug that hole, then it (SM) has lost all connections to both the space-time and gravity. Thus, the Higgs (as it is currently defined) is a very bad idea. The hole of SM must be connected to both space-time and gravity (whatever they are).

Higgs boson, a bad idea, part four

{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.}





With the Standard Model (quark universe) as the destination, I have shown a road map of how to reach it from a singularity, the nothingness. I am summarizing this roadmap below.

According to the principles of Linguistics Manifesto, all large complex systems arise from a series of “self-reflection” processes. There are, at least, three self-reflections on the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking for giving rise to the physical universe.

A. Self-reflection one (the singularity self-reflection)--- the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking via the concretizing pathway, and it gives rise to two concrete objects, trisected angle and a circle. The key numbers for these two objects are (3, pi, 4, 64).

B. Self-reflection two (the loop-line self-reflection) --- the zero(s)/infinities symmetry via the “loop-line” symmetry breaking pathway, and it gives rise to,

     i. three seats (x, y, z) as a line has three parts, the two ends and the middle.

     ii. (4, 4, 4) = 64 dimensions, as every seat has 4 dimensions (+1, -1, +i, -i).

     iii. The inner product (IP, another self-reflection) gives rise to two groups with two subgroups each.

                a. Positive (32 dimensions)

                           1. When IP = +1 (24 dimensions), these could be the matter dimensions.

                           2. When IP = +3 (8 dimensions), these should be the vacuum dimensions. 

                b. Negative (32 dimensions)

                           1. When IP = -1 (24 dimensions), these could be the anti-matter dimensions.

                           2. When IP = -3 (8 dimensions), these should be the vacuum dimensions.

C. Self-reflection three (the stock sharing self-reflection) --- the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking via the results of the two self-reflections above. The wholeness (the unit circle) is divided by those 64 dimensions according to the actual manifestation. Thus, there should be a dividing “unit”, A(0).

       a. A(0), the unit angle,  equals to  {(360/2pi) *[(pi/64 + (pi/64)^ 2 + (pi/64)^3  + ... ]/2]} = 1.4788413 degrees. 

Note: the A(0) is based only on the two self-reflections above, with only the numbers (pi and 64) in its calculation.

       b. A(1), the first order division (stock sharing), equals to

                           [360 - 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.521159 degrees.

Again, A(1) is wholly based on the two self-reflections above, with only the numbers [360 (=2pi), 24, A(0)].

       c. A(2), the second order division (pie sharing), equals to

                                      (2 * [360 - A(1) - A(0)]/24) = 28.75 degree.

Again, A(2) is wholly based on the previous data, with only the numbers [360 (=2pi), 24, A(0), A(1)].

Coincidentally, the value of A(1) is very close to the Cabibbo angle (θ_c), and the value of A(2) is very close to the Weinberg angle (θ_W ). For both the Weinberg angle (θ_W ) and Cabibbo angle (θ_c), they are the results of “bookkeeping” by measuring the ratios of different quarks in a mixing bowl (the result of collisions of high energy particles). They are not derived theoretically.

On the contrary, the A(1) and A(2) are derived theoretically from the self-reflection of the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking. They are the precise rules for the “stock sharing” among those dimensions (different quarks or leptons) which arise from the symmetry breaking.

Then, there is a dimensionless constant (alpha, the electron fine structure constant), and its measured value is as below.

                                                            Beta = 1/alpha = 137.0359 …

Thus far, this alpha is viewed as the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.

Yet, in the Prequark Chromodynamics ( http://www.prequark.org/ , no longer online ), the Alpha is calculated theoretically with the following equation.

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)

        = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …) = 137.0408704 …

The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + ...+(1/n)(1/64)^n +...] = .00065737 + …  

Note: there is a 0.0036% difference between this theoretical number from the measured value. The A(2) =28.75 degrees is calculated with the universe having the zero mass, and it could be compressed a bit after the universe gained its mass. This difference can be a way to estimate the mass of the current universe.

Thus, the “Alpha” is the controlling rule for the “stock sharing” for those dimensions (manifested as quarks and leptons).  In fact, a sharing plan is always the governing rule (such as the constitution) for any large complex system, a politic system or else.

With these three self-reflections of the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking, the roadmap from a “singularity” to “quark universe” is, now, clear with a perfect internal consistency.  And, these three self-reflections are the foundation for the Prequark Chromodynamics.

On the contrary, the idea of Higgs boson as a neutral particle without any internal structure (not composite of any sub-particles) is, in fact, a dangling particle without any foundation. As a dangling rootless particle in comparison to a perfect road map, how can this Higgs boson not be a bad idea?

Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/ (no longer online)

The final physics theory, part 2

In the last post, I have produced three angles [A(0), A(1) and A(2)]. The fact that A(1) and A(2) are coincidentally equal to the Cabibbo and the Weinberg angles is just happy coincidences. Cabibbo angle is a perimeter for the weak interaction. The Weinberg angle is from the mixing ratio for the W-boson and Z-boson. Yet, the A(1) and A(2) arise from a completely different logic, a new theory of zeros/infinities symmetry breaking.

However, if we can make another major connection to the foundation of physics with these two angles, then, they are no longer a “number game” or happy coincidences. This simple theory of zeros/infinities symmetry breaking must be the foundation of physics.

The key foundation of this physical universe is its physical constants, such as, the electric charge (e), the light speed ( C ) and the Planck constant (ħ = h/2π). If there is any variation from these constants, this universe will become very unstable. Thus, a constant which is derived from these constants must be the center anchor for this physics universe. And, alpha = e^2/ħc  is such an anchor as it combines three the most fundamental physical constants together. Alpha is called the "electron fine structure constant" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant  ). In fact, the value of Alpha can be calculated via its definition. And, it is also measurable experimentally. The currently accepted value is Beta = 1/ alpha = 137.0359895…

Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Laureates of physics) wrote about this Alpha, “… Immediately you would like to know where this number [alpha] for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the ‘hand of God' wrote that number, and 'we don't know how He pushed his pencil.’ We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

Indeed, besides its definition, no one (not just Richard P. Feynman) was able to come up this number “alpha” with a currently accepted physics theory. Yet, this dimensionless constant (alpha) is the direct consequence of this zeros/infinities symmetry breaking, a new physics.

              Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing) 

The first order sharing (from the dividing angle) = 1/Cos [A(2)]

Note, the sharing (or mixing) is about how the members (elementary particles) share the pie of the wholeness, such as, how big a share that a W-boson will take in comparison to the Z-boson’s share.

The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + ...+(1/n)(1/64)^n +...] = .00065737 + …  

Note: The value for the first three terms of the higher order mixing = .00065737

Thus, Beta = 64 (1 + 1/Cos [A(2)] + .00065737 + …) = 137.0408704 …

Note: there is a 0.0036% difference between this theoretical number from the measured value. The A(2) =28.75 degrees is calculated with the universe having the zero mass, and it could be compressed a bit after the universe gained its mass. Thus, this difference can be a way to estimate the mass of the current universe.

Well, numbers game or not, I have produced a dimensionless constant (alpha), the greatest damn mysteries of physics, with a consistent logic, the zeros/infinities symmetry breaking. Furthermore, this greatest damn mystery of physics is the center anchor for the physics universe.

While no one truly know what the physical meaning for alpha in the current physics theories is, it is simply the “stock sharing” rule, in this new physics, for the elementary particles to get their share of the pie in this space-time sheet universe.  And, this, of course, deserves to be the center anchor for physics.

Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/

The final physics theory

I have showed that some angles and four numbers (3, pi, 4 and 64) must be the essential parts of the final physics theory. Will anyone be surprised that two angles are, indeed, the essential parts of the Standard Model.

1. The Cabibbo angle (θ_c), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo%E2%80%93Kobayashi%E2%80%93Maskawa_matrix  ---  it is a measured perimeter in the weak interaction. It’s measured value is  (θ_c)   = 13.04 degrees.

2. The Weinberg angle (θ_W ), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_angle   --- It is the angle by which spontaneous symmetry breaking rotates the original W (0) and B (0) vector boson plane. The value of (θ_W ) varies as a function of the momentum transfer. The measured value ranges from 28.8 to 30°, the lower value corresponds to the lower momentum transfer energy.

The two angles θ_c   and θ_W  are two free perimeters in the Standard Model. That is, they are measured perimeters, not theoretical variables which are derived from some basic principles.

Can we derive these two angles (which are the facts of the universe) from this new theory?  Yes, we must if the symmetry breaking of zeros is valid.

As the space-time sheet breaks out from the singularity of zero, it must encompass the entire “number” set which is a plane (real and imaginary numbers), not just a line. Thus, every “point” has four dimensions (+1, -1, +i, -i).

For every symmetry breaking in this number theory, it gives rise to three parts (two ends and the loop).  Thus, every breaking has three parts (putting into three seats).

So, the “zero” breaking must be written as (x, y, z) and it has (4, 4, 4) = 64 dimensions.

According to the Linguistics Manifesto, the similarity transformation arises from a self-reflection, that is, an “inner production” in this case. Thus, these 64 dimensions become four groups. The

                                  (x, y, z)  (x, y, z)  = {+/- 1, +/- 3}

Such as,

1. (1, 1, 1) x (1, 1, 1) = 1x1 + 1x1 + 1x1 = 3

2. (1, i, 1) x (1, i, 1) = 1x1 + i x i + 1x1 = 1

For +1, there are 24 dimensions. For +3, there are 8 dimensions. And, it is the same for the negative 1 and 3. That is, the wholeness (the zeros/infinities symmetry) is breaking into 4 groups (+8, +24, -8, -24). Is it a happy coincidence that there are 24 fundamental particles and 24 anti-particles.

a. Six quarks with three color charges, 6 x 3 = 18

b. Six leptons. 

In Prequark Chromodynamics, there are 8 vacuum states in addition to the 24 particles. And, these 64 dimensions work perfectly on the known matter/antimatter universe.

Yet, this happy coincidence means nothing if we cannot reproduce the (θ_c) and (θ_W ) which are the facts of this known universe.

As the wholeness is the zeros/infinities symmetry, its symmetry breaking produces angles and a unit circle. Thus, the number pi is the concrete representation of this wholeness. The breaking process is simply to divide the wholeness evenly among those new born dimensions. That is, we need a “unit” (the cutting knife) for the division. This unit angle is calculated with the following equations.

a. (pi/64 + (pi/64)^ 2 + (pi/64)^3  + ...)  = [ 1/(1 - pi/64)] - 1 = .051621342...

b. A(0), the unit angle,  equals to 1.4788425146211 degrees [57.29577951 * .051621342/2].

Obviously, these equations use only the numbers (pi, 64), and this meets the criterion of this theory. However, the detailed reason for these equations is available at http://www.prequark.org/think02.htm (no longer online).

By having the cutting knife, we can begin to cut the wholeness (the zeros/infinities symmetry) the first time with the following equation.

                 A(1) = [360 - 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.5211574853 degrees

This equation is obviously dividing the wholeness (360 degrees) evenly to the 24 matter particles. Furthermore, this equation uses only the concept of zeros/infinities symmetry breaking and only with the allowed numbers [360 (=2pi), 24 and A(0)]. In fact, this is the theoretical calculation for the Cabibbo angle with the measured value as (θ_c)  = 13.04 degrees. If this is just a happy coincidence, more happiness is yet to come.

Again, according to the Linguistics Manifesto, all large complex systems are built up via a repeated self-reflection. That is, the wholeness should be divided the second time, which is done with the following equation.

                                A(2) = 2 * [360 - A(1) - A(0)]/24 = 28.75 degree

The logic of this equation is quite simple, and I will not repeat it here. It is available at the Prequark site. Most importantly, it meets the criterion of this theory, that is, it uses no logic or numbers of any kind other than those allowed. This is, in fact, the theoretical calculation for the Weinberg angle (θ_W ) = 28.8 degrees,  at the low transfer energy situation.

Now, I have produced three angles [A(0), A(1) and A(2)] which are demanded by this new theory of zeros/infinities symmetry breaking. The fact that A(1) and A(2) are coincidentally equal to the Cabibbo and the Weinberg angles is just happy coincidences. We must produce more physics facts along this logic, and that will be the happiness yet to come.

Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/ (no longer online)