Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, mystery no more!

Alpha (Fine Structure Constant) was initially viewed as an observed coupling constant for the amplitude of a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. Thus, the value for Alpha could vary depending upon the energy level. In the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) energy level, the Alpha should approach the same level as the strong force coupling value, and its observed value does approach 1/128 at interaction energies above 80 GeV.

However, the theoretical calculation equation for Alpha below can, indeed, encompass the above-said issue, as the A(2), the  Weinberg angle, in the equation is also varying as a function of the momentum transfer, Q. At Q = 0.16 GeV/c, the Weinberg angle is about ~30°. In fact, the Weinberg angle ranges from 28 to 30 degrees.

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

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

         =  137.0359 …

 A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees

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

       = .00065737 + … 

However, when Alpha is defined as,

 Alpha = e^2/c * h-bar 

it is no longer a measured “coupling” constant. It is an anchor-lock which locks the three Nature constants [electric charge (e), light speed (c) and Planck constant (h-bar)]. That is, the Alpha must be a true constant, not a varying constant anymore. The measured value for this true constant (at low energy level) is 137.03597….

Again, my theoretical equation of Alpha does reproduce this value (137.03597…) when the Weinberg angle = 28.743 degrees. Obviously, this Weinberg angle (28.743 degrees) does fall in the range of the observed values (from 28 to 30 degrees). Yet, can this be a simple good luck? And, the theoretical equation for Alpha is still a numerological formula, isn’t it?  

Today, the Weinberg angle is a pure observed parameter, and it has no theoretical base for its calculation. If I can provide a theoretical calculation for the Weinberg angle with the same physics which calculates the Alpha, will it still be a good luck numerological formula?

While both Cabibbo angle and Weinberg angle are the foundation for electro-weak symmetry breaking, there is no axiomatic linkage between the two. If I can show two points,

1. the Cabibbo angle can be calculated with the same physics which calculates both the Weinberg angle and the Alpha, (note --- today, Cabibbo is also a pure observed parameter without any theoretical base for its calculation in the Standard Model),

2. the Weinberg angle is actually derived with the Cabibbo angle,

then, will them still be good luck numerological formulas? If they are, they are “chain-linked” good luck numerological formulas.

These chain-linked formulas are available in the article “LHC and the knowledge-based physics, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html “.

In the  “Introduction to The Common Sense” (page 3), Thomas Paine wrote, "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

By agreeing with Paine 100%, I am not trying to convince anyone about this new physics which provides the theoretical chain-formulas as the final physics. I will simply give a short history of it here.

The theoretical calculations for the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles were done in 1980 and published in the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325) in 1984. This book is available in many university libraries around the world, and this info is available from the WorldCat (the world's largest library catalog).

They were also discussed online in 2001. A copy of Dr. Jason W. Hinson’s (Cornell University) email on this issue was published in the article “Playing with numbers??? “  at  http://www.prequark.org/think04.htm (no longer online).

The theoretical calculation for Alpha was done in 1990 and was published online since 1997. However, the 1997 online page is no longer available. Now,  it is available at the following sites.

a.  at professor Matt Strassler's blog (http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/23/synopsis-of-the-opera-situation/#comment-6531 ), a very popular physics discussion site.

b. http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/#comment-32568

c. http://erikandrulis.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/a-metaphysical-gedankenexperiment/comment-page-1/#comment-532

d. http://physicsfocus.org/athene-donald-we-should-all-be-aware-of-our-unconscious-biases/#comment-3407

e. the Prequark site (http://www.prequark.org/pq04.htm, no longer online ) since May 2005.

f. http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-four.html  , May 2011.

In the book (Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine, page 121), he wrote, "Ignorance of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, and it is impossible to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant."

Now, this information is here.

Update (January 24, 2014):

On January 5, 2014, Amir Mulic published an Alpha formula (4π^3+π^2+π). Although he gave it an M-string interpretation, it is still basically a numerological formula.

The fine-structure constant should be a running constant with (1/α) = 4π^3+π^2+π at low energy while it approaches 128 at energy higher than 90 Gev. . Thus, the 4π^3+π^2+π formula meets only one point of that spectrum. Furthermore, that formula can only be interpreted in terms of geometry or topology, hinting an eleven (11) dimension universe. But, my Alpha formula has the following points.

1.       It has a ‘physics’ parameter, the Weinberg angle.

2.       As this Weinberg mixing angle is a function depending on the energy, this formula encompasses the entire  (1/α) spectrum (from 4π^3+π^2+π to 128).

3.       It is also a formula for an eleven dimension universe.

My Alpha-formula above (with the Weinberg angle) is, in fact, the result of three points.

First,  ‘uncountable-infinity to finite’ concretization process, see "Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html )”. That is, the uncountable-infinity is concretized as a circle (or a pie).

Second, this pie (the highest infinity) is ‘divided’ by 64 kids (of this ultimate infinity) which consist of two groups; one group (16 kids) takes the energy (dark energy), the other (48 kids) takes the landmass as landlords.  See “Pimple Model; BARKED UP THE WRONG TREES (M-THEORY AND SUSY); (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/ )” and “DARK ENERGY, MYSTERY NO MORE! (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/ )”. Thus, the numbers (64, 48 and 24) play the key roles in my Alpha-formula. The whole point is about the ‘dividing’ the pie.

Third, the 64 and 48 are the result of a True-Ultimate-Symmetry (the real/ghost symmetry, see http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm , no longer online) breaking.

Yet, when Mulic’s formula is rewritten with the following equation, the physics significance is now all clear.

Let 2 π = the circumference of a unit disk (with radius = 1) = Pie

          π = half Pie = HPie

Then, his formula can be written as,

(1/α) = (1/2) {Pie * [(Pie + 1/Pie)^2 + (HPie – 1/HPie) – ((1/Pie) – 1)^2]} … equation A

The equation A above is the topological (static) description of the three points above

(Pie + 1/ Pie), type 1 mixing (division); (Pie + 1/ Pie)^2, the first order mixing

(HPie – 1/HPie), type 2 mixing (division), the second order mixing

[(1/Pie) – 1]^2, the ‘remainder’ (indivisible) of the division

So, equation A = (1/2) Pie * (the first order mixing + the second order mixing - the ‘remainder’ of mixing)

Thus, although Amir Mulic’s formula (4π^3+π^2+π) is purely numerological, it can be rewritten with my physics. The fact that the Alpha is now written with two formulas (one static and one dynamic), the validity of this Alpha-physics is very much assured.

Note (added on August 28, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

Seehttps://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

 Copyright © April 2012 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

Definition of mass, the gateway to the final unification in physics

Now, LHC is probing the spacetime inside of protons and is investigating the mass-rising mechanism, as these researchers are the final steps for a final physics. Yet, I have shown that there is an anchor-lock (Alpha, the Electron Fine Structure Constant) in Nature, and it locks the absolute definitions for the space, time and mass. Thus, the physics which gives rise to this Alpha (that is, the physics which provides the theoretical calculation for the Alpha) should be the final physics.

However, Richard Feynman (a Nobelist on Physics) said, 'There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e - the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number 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!'

The Inverse-Alpha = 1/Alpha = 137.03597… is a dimensionless pure number, and it can be reached by many numerological formulas. However, if we can show that each term and each number used in the equation which calculates the Alpha has physics meaning, then that equation is about physics, not a simple numerological formula. And, I have shown the following equations online since 1997.

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

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

         =  137.0359 …

 A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees

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

       = .00065737 + … 

  

There is no question of any kind about the equation of Beta which gives a dimensionless “number” exactly identical to the known value of the Inverse-Alpha. Yet, is the equation of Beta simply a numerological formula? The answer is, of course, hinging on its terms and numbers used in the formula. That is, are the terms and numbers in the formula [64, A(2) and the formula for the sum of the higher order mixing] simply numerological choices or the bases for an underlying physics?

As the A(2) is the Weinberg angle, it is a very important physics parameter in the Standard Model. Yet, is the chosen value (28.743 degrees) a numerological choice? Can this value be calculated with the “same physics” which gives rise to Alpha? After these questions are answered, we will know for sure that we have a physics equation for Alpha or simply a numerological formula for it.

As this Weinberg angle is the key parameter for calculating the mass of weak bosons, I will start this analysis from the meaning and the definition of “mass”.

In physics, mass was “first” defined only with an operational definition, that is, with measurement, either for accelerating mass or gravitational mass. The epistemology for this is the “interplay of theory and test”, and it can be called as T-physics.

After the introduction of Special Relativity (SR), a semi-paradoxical mass-energy relationship was discovered.  Professor Matt Strassler gave a great explanation about mass with his article “Mass and Energy” (available at http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/ ). In that article, two issues about mass are clearly explained.

1. A semi-paradoxical attribute about mass --- the mass of an object has a universal value for all observers while the measurement of mass of that object is following exactly with the law of SR.

2. By understanding this semi-paradoxical attribute about mass, there is a clear procedure to distinguish the signals of the Higgs decay into diphotons from its background noises.

However, the definition of mass in Matt’s explanation is still wholly in terms of “operational” although the law of SR is used.

In fact, after we have learned enough from the T-physics, we can organize that knowledge as an axiomatic system, the knowledge physics (K-physics in short). Of course, the epistemology here can be different, by using the rules of the axiom system. Thus, the mass or energy can be defined with some axiomatic sentences (or equations). Among the fundamental parameters (time, space, mass, energy, electric charge, etc.) of this K-physics, the electric charge is obviously a derived parameter as it can be written as a function of h-bar and c (light speed). There are also two axiomatic sentences for energy.

      a. Einstein, E = mc^2

      b. Planck, E = h-bar v(frequency)

If we combine the two axiomatic sentences above, the mass can also be expressed as a function of h-bar and c. That is, the mass and the electric charge differ only in degree, not in kind. Thus, if we can truly understand the definition of mass in this way, it might lead us to a true Super Unification.

In Physics, there are three different types of energy, the motion energy (in terms of momentum), the rest energy (mass) and the relational energy. If there is a Super Unification in the Nature physics, those three types of energy must be unified first. Thus, in addition to Einstein’s E = mc^2 which transforms “mass” into energy, the energy (a massless particle) must be able to become (acquire) “massive”.  That is, there must be a mass-rising mechanism.

In the macro-world, the mass is simply the aggregate of a pile of elementary particles. Thus, by understanding the mass-rising mechanism for elementary particles, we will know exactly what the “mass” is. There are, at least, two mass-rising mechanisms in the discussion, the Higgs-mechanism, and the See-Saw mechanism. Basically, if the associated symmetry for a particle is not broken, that particle is massless (no rest mass). Thus, those mechanisms are symmetry breaking procedures. And, the Higgs boson supposes to be the actor in the Higgs-mechanism. Is there a Standard Model Higgs in the Nature physics? This question could be answered in just a few more months with LHC’s upcoming “test” data.

However, with the K-physics (the axiom system of human physics), it can be easily deduced that if there is Super Unification in the Nature physics, then there should be one and only one mass-rising mechanism, not two or many. Thus, both Higgs-mechanism and the See-Saw mechanism are at best the shadows of the real one.

While those two mass-rising mechanisms are still under testing, there are some concrete parameters which did give the precise calculation for the mass of weak bosons, the Cabibbo angle (θ_c  about 13 degrees) and the Weinberg angle (θ_W  from 28 to 30 degrees). The values of these two angles are free parameters in the Standard Model, that is, they were forced into the model with the demand of fitting the data and had no theoretical base for them. Thus, if these two angles can be calculated theoretically, then the “physics” which provides those calculations should be able to give “mass” a theoretical definition.  

I already provided the calculations for both Cabibbo and Weinberg angles in my previous post (Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html ).


Again, I must show that those equations are not numerological formulas but are the consequences of the same physics which gives rise to the Alpha.  And, I will do this in my next posts.


As soon as this is done, the true mass-rising mechanism will be understood, even without the answers from the LHC data.  The LHC data will have no choice but will verify the validity of this mass-rising mechanism derived from this K-physics calculation. Then, the questions of “dark matter” and of “why are the universe accelerating during its expansion?”  will be answered.

Arbitrariness and the final unification in physics

In a nutshell, physics is a science which studies three parameters; the space, the time and the mass. Now, the LHC is probing these three parameters from inside of the proton which can be viewed as a micro-copy of the big universe.

Yet, these three physics parameters are intuitively known by the people before the modern physics. Furthermore, they were arbitrarily defined by the human conveniences. It was quite straightforward to define the time by using the spin of the Earth, and the unit (in second) was also arbitrarily chosen as [1/ (60x60x24) of an Earth’s spin duration]. The length (in meter) was also chosen with a convenience, an arbitrarily chosen fraction of the estimated distance between the poles of the Earth.  The mass was also defined with an arbitrarily chosen metal slug. However, we are now probing the space, time and mass inside of the protons with those arbitrarily chosen units.

While these three parameters are the fundamental bases for constructing a universe by Nature, why are they able arbitrarily defined by us? The answer is very simple. Any arbitrary acts of ours can never mess up the “absoluteness” of the Nature design. Those three “Nature” parameters must be “locked” by Nature with an anchor lock. And, I have shown that there is, indeed, an “anchor lock” in the article (LHC and the knowledge-based physics,  http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html ).

With this anchor lock (Alpha, the Electron Fine Structure Constant), the entire “Universe” is fully defined. Thus, the physics underneath of this anchor lock will be the rock bottom physics for the entire universe.

First, this anchor lock (Alpha) is a dimensionless pure number, that is, it is independent of the chosen units of its three parameters [electric charge (e), light speed (c) and Planck constant (h-bar)].   Thus, we can define the three units (length, second and mass) arbitrarily, with our conveniences.

Second, as the anchor lock for these three parameters (e, c, h-bar), its value (Alpha) must be the direct consequence of the physics which define these three parameters. Yet, these three parameters are known via our test data, that is, they are defined in terms of “operations”, without any theoretical bases.

As I have shown a theoretical calculation for Alpha (Electron Fine Structure Constant) in a previous post, I will show the theoretical bases for each of those parameters. In the next post, I will show the theoretical definition for “mass”.

LHC and the knowledge-based physics

The modern physics is the greatest human achievement after applying a very strict self-discipline on an epistemology (the interplays of theory and tests), that is, if we cannot test it, then we have no way of “knowing” it.  There is a good chance that the LHC can finalize our search for the “final” physics. However, if the final physics lies beyond the reach of LHC, then it will be a long time before we can make any progress in physics with the old epistemology. Thus, a new epistemology might be needed for this upcoming new era.

There are, in fact, two physics.

1. Physics of Nature --- this preexists humanity, the N-physics.

2. Physics of human --- man’s attempt to understand the physics of Nature, the H-physics.

These two physics are dramatically different before their final unification. Today, the methodology and the epistemology of H-physics are the interplays of theories and testing. Thus, the H-physics can be divided further into two groups.

A. Physics of theories and tests, the T-physics.

B. Physics of knowledge (the K-physics) --- as soon as a “part” of the N-physics is learned via the T-physics, it becomes a “knowledge” (K-physics) which is different from the T-physics.

In fact, there are five parts in the H-physics.

1. Laws --- they are always correct in their defined domain.

2. Principles --- they should be correct universally, in all domains.

3. Nature constants --- they must be correct universally, as they are the measuring “rules” for the constructing of the universe.

4. Theories --- the human’s attempt to modeling the Nature’s design.

5. Test data --- the human’s attempt to verify the human theories.

Among the first three (laws, principles and nature constants), the nature constants should preempt all others. The Nature constants are the measuring rulers for constructing the universe. That is, they should be universal. So, as soon as they are discovered by H-physics, they should be placed into the N-physics, and they can be a base for constructing an axiom system for H-physics. This new physics is “knowledge-based” (the K-physics).   As this K-physics is an axiom system, it has its own internal truth verifying mechanism according to the axiomatic rules. Thus, even without a further test data, K-physics can still progress as an axiom system. Please note that there is a big difference between the theoretical physics which is a part of the T-physics and this K-physics which is an axiom system. Thus, this K-physics can be a checking razor for the T-physics. For example, the recent OPERA data about the Superluminal Neutrinos can be simply ruled out by the K-physics (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/09/superluminal-neutrinos-and-massive.html ).

Then, what kind of knowledge is needed for constructing this K-physics? I will start it with the Nature constant. Again, among many nature constants, what should those be selected? The gravitational constant is seemingly not a true constant but evolves in time. As the nature constants are the measuring ruler for this universe, there should be only one true nature constant. Therefore, I will select the Alpha (the electron fine structure constant) as this only Nature constant.

Alpha = e^2/c * h-bar 

In fact, this Alpha is composed of three nature constants, e (electric charge), c (light speed) and h-bar (the Planck constant). That is, this Alpha “locks” these three nature constants. If one changes, then, the one of the other two (at least) or both must also change.

This locking mechanism does have an internal hierarchy. The e (electric charge) constant is a derivative of c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). That is, the Alpha is an axiom system itself, perhaps the simplest one. And, from there, a very complicated axiom system can come alive.

1. The c (light speed) gives rise to an event horizon, that is, guaranteeing a causal universe.

2. The h-bar (Planck constant) is an innate angular momentum and gives rise to mass and energy.

3. The e (electric charge) is derived from c and h-bar and gives rise to a maximum viewing window, for us to view the universe.

As these three Alpha-Nature constants (e, c, h-bar), in fact, define our universe, the Alpha itself must arise from the core-essence of Nature physics. That is, the Alpha must be arisen from physics and must be able to be calculated with physics parameters.

At Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant ), a numerological calculation for Alpha is given. In fact, any pure number (such as Alpha) can always be approximated with a numerological formula, and it is not physics at all. A nature constant must be calculated with physics parameters. The following equation is a physics equation (not numerology) as it does use the physics parameters, such as the Weinberg angle which is the most important physics parameter as it gives the mass for the weak bosons.

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

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

         =  137.0359 …

 A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees

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

       = .00065737 + … 

Thus, the physics which provides the above calculation must be a part of the Nature physics.

Again, the Cabibbo angle (θ_c  about 13 degrees) and the Weinberg angle (θ_W  from 28 to 30 degrees) are two very important physics parameters. The values of these two angles are free parameters in the Standard Model, that is, they were forced into the model with the demand of fitting the data and had no theoretical base for them. Thus, if these two angles can be calculated theoretically, then the “physics” which provides those calculations should be also a part of the Nature physics. They, indeed, can be calculated with the following equations.

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

 and this is very close to the Cabibbo angle (θ_c).

A(0) is an innate angle of the universe with the value = 1.4788425146211 degrees. How is A(0) calculated? It was described in detail on the page 36 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325).

2. With A(0) and A(1), we get

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

         = 28.75 degree,

 and this is almost the same as the measured Weinberg angle (θ_W ).

Most importantly, the physics for the calculations of those four physics parameters [A(0), Cabibbo angle, Weinberg angle and Alpha)] is the same physics.

With these four calculations, an axiom system for physics can be established. While we are waiting for the test data from LHC, physics can still progress with this K-physics.

The Largest Prime Number Conjecture

Yesterday (11/11/11) was a special day in terms of the calendar numerology. In China, many young people called this day as the “bachelor day of the century”, as every number in the calendar is “1”, single as a bachelor. And, this won’t happen again until 100 years from now. In fact, the entire world celebrated this day in one way or the other.

Obviously, this calendar numerology has no scientific significance. Anyone who thinks it otherwise is, indeed, a solatic (meaning a lunatic in the daylight, a term invented by Matt Strassler, a theorist on physics). Of course, the calendar numerology does have some culture and psychological significances.

However, the simple numerology does have some great importance in modern science. Thus, on this special day, I would like to use a special number game (using only the number 0 and 1) to show this point.

The prime number game --- if X is the largest “known” prime number with m digits (such as, one billion digits),

then    Y1 = (10^n) + 1, and  n = m + 1.

          Y2 = (1111…1110) + 1, there are n digits in the bracketed number, and

                         n = m + 1 if m is an even number,

                         n = m + 2 if m is an odd number.
                      

           Then, n is checked with two steps.

  step 1. if  {3, 5, 7, 11 or 13} is a divisor of n, then n = n + 2

  step 2. if the square root of n [n^(1/2)],  [n^(1/3)], [n^(1/5)], [n^(1/7)], [n^(1/11)], or  [n^(1/13)]

                 i. is equal to an integer, then n = n + 2 and go back to step 1.

                 ii. is not equal to an integer, then n is chosen. 

           Thus, Y2 must have odd number digits and all its digits are “1”.

As this is only a game for this special (11/11/11) day, I will not try to prove a “Largest Prime Number” theorem but make it as a conjecture.

Largest Prime Number Conjecture:
 a. if X is the largest “known” prime number with m digits (such as, one billion digits), then one of the two numbers (Y1 or Y2) is a larger prime than X.

 b. if the Y2 above is not a prime, then let n = n + 2 and repeat the n-check steps to get a new Y2. There is always a Y2 which is a prime and Y2 > X.

Technicolor, simply wrong

In the recent LHC data, the supersymmetry and superstring theories are basically ruled out. Thus, the Technicolor has gained some attention among physicists.

  

Technicolor in terms of Rishon Model  (RM) was internally inconsistent and was ruled out 30 years ago theoretically. In my view, technicolor is simply wrong.

The rishon model (RM) is the result of a reverse-engineering of trying to explain the quark color by postulating preons (sub-particle of quarks) which carry Technicolor (the hypercolor). And, the preons are postulated "point-like" particles, conceived to be subcomponents of quarks and leptons. That is, the RM has no underlying physics as its foundation.

Yet, Prequarks in Prequark Chromodynamics (PM) are often mistaken to be similar to the preons. Although quarks and leptons are composed of prequarks, prequarks are not particles at all but are attributes of the spacetime sheet. There are at least four major differences between Preon (Rishons) model.

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.

This new physics goes way beyond the gadget physics, and thus I presented it with a new methodology, the Fictitious Universe (FU) Physics.  In FU physics, all physics (principles or laws) are derived, not discovered. Then, these FU laws are compared to the discovered physics laws, as a fingerprints marching or a beauty contest. I have shown many fingerprints marching in my last post (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/physics-laws-must-give-rise-to.html ) without revealing the underlying physics. Now, I will give a brief outline about this new physics which has only two simple points.

1. The law of creation --- the term “Law of Creation” is a no-no word in science, especially in the gadget physics. In fact, the “First” spontaneous symmetry breaking (FSSB) is the result of the law of creation, which consists of two parts.

a. The “Original” symmetry

b. The symmetry breaking process.

This “Law of Creation” was described in detail in the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325) and is available online. Thus, I will only discuss it very briefly here.

The result of this symmetry breaking (creation) is the spacetime sheet. The breaking process is to transform the symmetry “dimension” (X) to the spacetime “dimension” (n). In Super Unified Theory (SUT), the above process is called the “dimension concretization” or dimension expression, and the n = 11 in SUT.

2. The attributes of spacetime  --- “time” comes into being after the above creation, and it has the following attributes in SUT.

a. “Time” is a quanta, that is, delta T > 0. Delta T can never be equal to zero.

b. “Time” is a 4-dimensional vector, delta T = (t, -t, it, -it). That is, every quanta of time must be identified with 4 labels. “it and –it” are the imaginary time.

c. “Space” is the expression of the “moving” time, that is, delta S = N* C* delta T. N is a time-moving matrix. C is the light speed.

The entire Fictitious Universe arose from these three attributes of time. All derived laws and prequarks (described in the previous posts) are direct consequences of them. I will reiterate some other important direct consequences below.

i. The universe must expand with Acceleration, as the creation process continues (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/nobel-prize-2011-accelerating-expansion.html ). Of course, when the mass of the universe reaches a critical point, the expansion will become decelerating.

ii. Every fermion’s (including neutrino’s) rest mass arises from the “flip-flop” between the “real” and the “imaginary” time mechanism.  That is, the Higgs mechanism is only the shadow of this RI-flip-flap mechanism. So, Higgs boson of any kind is not needed (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-nine.html ).

iii. As the rest mass of neutrino arises from this RI-flip-flap mechanism, neutrinos must oscillate (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/neutrino-oscillation-mystery-no-more.html ). And, there must not have the fourth type of neutrino of any kind.