Higgs-like forever and ever more!

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

There should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, see http://www.prequark.org/pq11.htm .

This vacuum boson's mass should be:

{Vacuum energy (about 246 Gev) divided by 2} + {a push over energy (vacuum fluctuation, about 2.46 Gev)}

= 123 + 2.46 = 125.46 Gev.

The above calculation has only one parameter: the vacuum energy. As a vacuum boson, its key feature is having a zero (0) spin.

Three years after the discovery of this new 125.4 Gev boson, the Higgs mechanism is not verified (see an article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, total nonsense, and of course, there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.

Endnote.}





Next week (the first week of March 2013), the Moriond conference will be held to make a new report on the Higgs search.

On June 28, 2012 (7 days before the July 4, 2012 CERN announcement about the discovery of a new boson), I commented at “Of Particular Significance” (a physics blog by Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler, http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/06/27/this-sites-background-articles-on-the-higgs/#comment-12536 ) saying, “Now, only 7 days to the CERN news conference on the Higgs update. If CERN made an announcement about the discovery of the SM Higgs in that conference outright, it will eventually be proved as a transient vision. A “bigger” gadget will eventually overturn it.”   Also see “The nightmare vs. the new era, http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/07/nightmare-vs-new-era.html ).

Again, if CERN confirms that the new boson is a Higgs of any kind in the next week conference at Moriond, it will eventually eat its words. The reason is very simple. There is Prequark Chromodynamics (http://www.prequark.org/ No longer online), and the Higgs mechanism is simply a shadow of the Prequark mechanism. That is, the best that the Higgs can ever get is the “Higgs-like” and no more.  The Higgs-like is forever and ever more.

Today is my birthday, and I am celebrating it by making this prediction to make and to mark the history forever and ever more.

Welcome to the camp of truth! Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

The papabear, Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, published a new book "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, ISBN-13: 978-1107028722" on November 30, 2012, and it is a textbook, suited to a one-year graduate course on Quantum Mechanics.

One passage of the book which is quoted widely among physics blogs is,

“My own conclusion (not universally shared) is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation.”

Yet, most of the physics blogger’s comments are negative. The followings are two of them.

“One may see that Weinberg's views have changed. Unfortunately, the direction of the change may be associated with the word "aging".  ... But the older Weinberg is still prejudiced that there should be some "less quantum" foundations beneath the quantum phenomena although this more general prejudice is still scientifically unjustifiable and ultimately wrong. (see http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/01/weinbergs-evolving-views-on-quantum.html ).”

“I fear I’m with those who don’t share this conclusion, but his arguments are well-worth paying attention to. For someone else who has thought deeply about all this, and come to conclusions closer to my own less well-considered ones, … (see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5487 ).”

Although I have advocated this view since 1980, the most recent articles which are available online were posted in April 2012 (six months before Weinberg’s book).  The axiomatic physics (the satisfactory other theory that Weinberg is looking for) is more fundamental than Quantum Mechanics. The followings are a few of them.

a. Axiomatic physics, the final physics (APRIL 28, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html ).

b. Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology (MAY 1, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html ).

c. Quantum behavior vs. the Cellular Automaton determinism (AUGUST 16, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/08/quantum-behavior-vs-cellular-automaton.html ).

d. Quantum algebra and axiomatic physics (SEPTEMBER 2, 2012, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/09/quantum-algebra-and-axiomatic-physics.html ).

In fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM expressed the Principle of Complementarity. Yet, the more fundamental principle is the Principle of Mutual Immanence which was discussed at http://www.prequark.org/Overview.htm#Mut (no longer online), which was posted online in February 1996.

Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, Welcome to the camp of truth!

Preons are dead, but prequarks are fully alive

In an article at (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5241 ), it wrote, “The latest Scientific American has a cover story about particle physics…. It’s called “The Inner Life of Quarks” and discusses models in which quarks and other elementary particles of the standard model are composites of more elementary objects called “preons”. The fact that the papers on the subject it refers to are from 1979 should make one suspicious: an idea that hasn’t had major developments in 33 years is a dead idea. Besides the overwhelming experimental evidence against preons (with the LHC bringing in many new much stronger negative results), the idea has huge inherent problems. The main issue is that one is trying to put together composites with masses as small as MeVs (or lower, if you try to do this with neutrinos) while the data says that things are point-like up to TeV scales, with just the forces you know about up to such scales.

The following is the summary of Scientific American’s article.

1.       In 1869 Dmitri Mendeleev created the periodic table of chemical elements by noticing that elements' properties fit into a repeating pattern, which physicists later explained as a consequence of atomic structure. A similar story may be playing out in particle physics again today.

2.       The 12 known elementary particles have their own repeating patterns, suggesting they are not truly fundamental but actually tiny balls containing smaller particles, which physicists tentatively call preons.

3.       Other evidence argues against this possibility. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, along with several lesser-known experiments, may finally settle the question.

The whole article is available at (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n5/full/scientificamerican1112-36.html ). 

There are major differences (at least four) between the preons/Rishons and the prequarks.

One, The Preon model (done by Abdus Salam) which was expanded as Rishons model (mainly done by Haim Harari). This Rishons model is very similar to my Prequark model. It has sub-quarks (T, V): {T (Tohu which means "unformed" in Hebrew Genesis)  and V ( Vohu which means "void" in Hebrew Genesis)}. But, Harari did not know what T is (just being unformed). On the other hand, the A (Angultron) is an innate angle, a base to calculate Weinberg angle and Alpha.

Two, the choosing of (T, V) as the bottom was ad hoc, a result of reverse-engineering. On the contrary, there is a very strong theoretical reason for where the BOTTOM is for G-theory.

In G-theory, the universe is ALL about computation, computable or non-computable. For computable, there is a TWO-code theorem. For non-computable, there are 4-color and 7-color theorems.

That is, the BOTTOM must be with two-codes. Any lower level under the two code will become TAUTOLOGY, just repeating itself.

Anything more than two codes (such as 6 quarks + 6 leptons) cannot be the BOTTOM.

Three, rishons (T or V) carry hypercolor to reproduce the quark color, but this set up renders the model non-renormalizable, quickly going into a big mess. So, it was abandoned on day one. On the other hand, prequarks (V or A) carry no color, and the quark color arises from the “prequark SEATs”. In short, Rishons model cannot work out a {neutron decay process} different from the SM process.

This is one of the key differences between prequark and (Rishons and SM).

Four, Preon/Rishons model does not have Gene-colors.

More details are available at http://www.prequark.org/ (no longer online).

Quantum algebra and axiomatic physics

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

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

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

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

 …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Quantum algebra:

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

               Quantum + quantum = deterministic, such as,

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

                   Proton + electron = hydrogen atom

                  Hydrogen atom + hydrogen atom = hydrogen molecule

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum behavior vs. the Cellular Automaton determinism

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


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


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


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

Predictions from Axiomatic physics

All BSMs (Beyond Standard Model) are extensions of SM, such as the SUSYs and the String theories. Yet, there is a major difference between the SM and the AP (Axiomatic physics) on the theoretical level, which was discussed in the article “Neutron decay and proton’s stability --- the source of universe’s evolution” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutron-decay-and-protons-stability.html ). In the SM, the electroweak symmetry breaking is caused by the Higgs mechanism. In the AP, the Higgs mechanism is only a shadow of the Real-Ghost flip-flop mechanism (see the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge”, http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm, no longer online). And, this Higgs mechanism issue will soon be answered by the LHC data. Thus, the first prediction of this AP is as follow.

Prediction one:

        a.  Higgs boson of any kind will be ruled out.

        b. All SUSY theories with s-particles will be ruled out.

        c. Any String theories with extract spatial dimension(s) will be ruled out.

Prediction two: As the observation of the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating was discovered in 1998, the prediction of that fact was published in 1984 in the book “Super Unified Theory”. See the article “Acceleration of the expanding universe, mystery no more! , http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/acceleration-of-expanding-universe.html “.

Prediction three: There are only 48 elementary particles in Nature, not counting the force carriers. See the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html “. This prediction includes the followings.

            a. No Higgs boson of any kind.

            b. No s-particle of any kind.

            c. No fourth generation particles.

As this prediction was done in 1984, the top quark and the tau lepton were not discovered then; thus, this AP also predicted both the top quark and the tau lepton as they are parts of the 48. While other theories, such as the SM, also predicted them, they did not and still do not include the a, b, and c predictions above.This prediction will separate these two types of theories.

Prediction four: The measured Alpha (Fine structure constant) for the old galaxies must be slightly different from the younger ones. See the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html “.

Prediction five:  The gravitation constant should vary during the evolution of the universe. See the article “The rise of gravitation, and hierarchy problem no more!",  http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/rise-of-gravitation-and-hierarchy.html “. In that article, the hierarchy problem is also resolved. Then, the dark matter and dark energy issue are resolved. See the article “Dark matter, mystery no more! , http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/dark-matter-mystery-no-more.html “.

These five predictions are experimentally testable, and some of them already experimentally or observationally verified. In addition to these predictions, this AP provides the answers to the following issues. 

      i. The origins of flavor and of generation --- see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html “.

      ii. The origin of space --- see the article “Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition for dimension, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html “.

     iii. The origin of mass --- see the article “Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-mass-gateway-to-final-physics.html “.

      iv. The origin of time --- see the article “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-time-breaking-of-perfect.html “

       v. The theoretical calculation of the Cabibbo / Weinberg angles and Alpha --- see the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html “.