Buying an apple on July 4th

 Matt Strassler wrote: “July 4th will never be the same.  As a child growing up in the United States, it meant flags, humidity, Sousa marches, democracy, and fireworks.  Now it means something else: Switzerland, laboratories, technical wizardry, Higgs particles and — fireworks!”

 

No!  July 4th will always be the same for me, fireworks for celebrating the American independence. As always, I had a big firework show in the backyard with a big BBQ party. Every firecracker went up to heaven with a loud-bang.

 

On the other hand, seemingly, “all” Higgs-firecrackers went dud on its first anniversary. It is rightfully so for two simple reasons.

 

1. A small reason —- no data of any kind is supporting a Higgs-firecracker. On July 4th, 2012, ATLAS alone can claim the discovery of a new boson with a mass about 125 Gev.   Yet, ATLAS has no additional data for the golden channels to support that that new boson is a Higgs of any kind thus far (on July 4th, 2013).

 

CMS did the same discovery claim on that same day. But, its March 2013 data showed that its discovery claim was sort of a mistake.  Instead of withdrawing its discovery claim, CMS released some data on the golden channels and claimed that the new boson is a Higgs of some sort.

 

There is a major problem for the CMS claim, its great data is written in statistics equation, similar to the story below.

Apple boy: $10 for { [1 (+/-) 1] Apple}

Grandmother: Hi, boy, here is a $10 bill.

Apple boy: Thanks grandmother.

Grandmother: Where is my Apple?

Apple boy: What Apple? There is no Apple (1 – 1 = 0 Apple).

Grandmother: How about the (1 + 1 = 2 Apple)?

Apple boy: Hi, grandmother, you never heard about the “error-bar” which happens only on the “on-sale day”, buy-one-get-one-free, and it happens only every zillion years.

 

Every statistics equation has two parts, the measurement (the body) and the error-bar (the tail). When the tail swallows the body, that equation is simply non-sense (although might still have some useful info for physicists).  Samuel Ting did not show the grandmother (the public) any number which has a tail bigger than the body in his AMS-02 presentation. But, most of released CMS golden channels data are the 0-Apple type, which will of course go dud.

 

 

2. The big reason —- there are two “solid” facts (not Apple-equations) known.

     a. Litmus test (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/04/litmus-test-for-final-physics.html ) for the final physics is now fully developed and widely known. One of the tests is the derivation of “Alpha”, which is absolutely not an Apple-equation. No grandmother will be confused by the calculation of Alpha. The answer is simply “right” or “wrong”.

 

     b. 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 [getting the Standard Model out of it] is an idea now discredited in the scientific community, … (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6002 )”

 

Yet, the G-string can easily reproduce all the 48 SM particles, and it is now available at Vixra.org (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/#comment-32550 ). With this, the SM is now having a theoretical foundation, and this is easily understood by the grandmother, no Apple-trick.

 

Yet, these two solid facts point out that Higgs mechanism is simply fairy-tale. Thus, how can Higgs-firecracker not go dud on this special July 4th?

 

This comment was originally post at  (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/07/04/happy-independhiggs-day/#comment-67689 ) .  

 

The grandmother physics

Matt Strassler : “In particular, I did not want to make compromises that would require me to lie. Sure, some amount of compromise is necessary when explaining a difficult concept to someone who’s never seen anything like it. But that shouldn’t go as far as telling someone something they will later have to un-learn, or that will confuse them because it is actually false.”

 

 Your article is truly a great report of personal experience. But, I am a bit surprised that you still need to make compromises (even to the edge of lying) sometimes. I fully agree with John Duffield’s quote, ” … Einstein saying ‘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 higher tier manifestations of that “foundation”. 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. Absolutely no compromise is needed. Furthermore, if a physics law can be told with two different folklores, the old grandmother will and can be the “judge” to decide which one is a good story while the other is a hallucination.

 

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 world views. 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 to a nature language, he does for sure not truly understand that math equation.

 

In this view, different languages are only different translation machines. More of this is meta-language issue is available at (http://www.chineselanguageforums.com/linguistics-f25/language-types-and-second-language-acquisition-t222.html#p1930 ).

What is the “goal” of physicists?

Matt Strassler’s description of Einstein’s career is very interesting. But, what is the point?

 

“If he were not already a Nobelist, his great works would not have been accepted by the Physics community.” Then, who is the one to loss if this was the case? 

 

What is the “goal” for physicists? Seeking for “truth”? Or, bragging each other’s works?

 

If Nature disguises himself as a retarded kid who sells snake oil in the market while the “final physics equation” was inscribed on the bottom of the bottle, will physicists have the ability to recognize that openly revealed secret? Or, it will be simply rejected, as it is not in accord with the “scientific process”.

 

If we lack the ability to recognize the truth which lies outside of the manmade “scientific process”, many of us will finish our lives with failures on our lifetime goal of seeking the truth. Who is the loser?

 

While every landmark can be gone around, the “Final” truth can never be gone over, gone under or gone around. We have the right to reject the truth but cannot escape from the failure of our lifetime goal as a physicist. Perhaps, many of us don’t give a damn about our lifetime goal anyway, as the “scientific process” is much more important than that.

 

We think we see the world out there, but all we ever observe is the image created in the mind – we each shape our own reality.

 

When two philosophical starting points like quantum mechanics and general relativity is not, appropriate and compatible – why constraints on principles ?

 

 

@Veeramohan: “ … I wonder how you got this flow of words, …”

 

The flow is as follow:

 

1. It was Einstein’s great misfortune of not knowing the “Super Unified force equation”. Otherwise, his theory will definitely be able to encompass the quantum principle.

 

2. Richard P. Feynman went upstairs with an irreducible lifetime regret of not knowing how God pushed His pencil of getting the simple number Alpha. Now, we know how a pencil should move to dig it out.

 

3. Since 1960, the little squire (experiments) acted as a King. Those data hodgepodge became the Standard Model, that is, the SM has “zero” theoretical “base”, not able to derive most of the free parameters it used in the model. Yet, a simple G-string (no known physic was put-in) can produce the entire SM particle zoo (see http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/ ). That is, a base for the SM particle zoo is now known.

 

4. The Higgs game was only a “reverse engineering” from the data hodgepodge; again without any theoretical base, not even know how to calculate the mass of the Higgs egg (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/higgs-chicken-higgs-egg-and-higgs.html ), and the search of it went all the way up to 650 Gev. On the other hand, the G-string base gives a “Physics” description of the Weak-scale dynamics. As the producing “u” is one step before the rising of “W” in this G-string music-chair game, it cannot be much heavier than the W, by 50% more at the best.

 

As this G-string is also the “base” for the three points above, it becomes “knowledge”.  That is, I know that the Higgs game is just a fairy tale, the hallucination; no experiment is needed for reach this conclusion. Of course, for a doubting Tom, he can wait for the test data which might mislead him for generations as many test data now is more political-correct than being scientific correct. But, the “truth” will always prevail sooner or later. This time looks like going to be later.

 

 

@S. Dino: “The Perlmutter Super-Nova Observations (1998) started out as routine science;… But the experimental results were not what cosmologists expected… “

 

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe was the direct “consequence” of the “Super Unification”, and it was discussed in the book “Super Unified Theory   —- The foundations of science” (US copyright number TX  1-323-231, registered on April 18, 1984)”, and it is available in “many” university-libraries around the world (USA, France, Japan, etc.). I truly feel sorry for those poor cosmologists.

 

 

@Veeramohan: 1. “ …  but both of them individually make no “action” at quantum level – so “h” was added. …  In relativity, the same “h” was replaced by “c^2″ in E = mc^2. “

 

“Why was ħ added?” is a history. The important thing is that it was our great luck that it did. The fact that relativity used m in place of ħ is indeed the great hint as the super unification gateway, as the m (mass) is indeed measured with ħ about the internal space-time of an envelope.  

 

 

@Veeramohan: 2.  “Constants are AXIOMS ?”

 

In a nutshell, physics is a science which studies three parameters; the space, the time and the mass. Yet, their measurements were arbitrarily defined by the human conveniences. Why are we able arbitrarily to define them? The answer is very simply. 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 anchor locks. The nature constants are those locks. Then, the Alpha locks those constants one step further. An article “Arbitrariness and the final unification in physics” is available at (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/arbitrariness-and-final-unification-in.html  ).

 

 

@Veeramohan: 3. “ … The last published words of Einstein were that all we do by the moment known in physics must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality.”

 

In the book “Linguistics Manifesto (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1)”, it lists a “Large Complex System Principle”.

 

The “Large Complex System Principle” (LCSP) —- there is a set principle which governs all large complex systems regardless of whatever those systems are, a number set, a physics set, a life set or a vocabulary set.

 

                   Corollary of LCSP (CLCSP) — the laws or principles of a “large complex system x” will have their correspondent laws and principles in a “large complex system y.”

 

This LCSP is 100% in agreement with Einstein’s last words.

 

Language in physics

Matt Strassler wrote: “… Clearly there is a language difference here… as is often the case with words in English and words in Physics-ese.  … to understand that this way of talking about the strengths of forces is the best one to use.”

 

Indeed, the “language” can make a big difference for the same story.  In my view, the four known forces can be described with a set completely different language. That is, we can view these forces in their functionalities instead of their strengths. Then, these four forces can be classified into two types.

 

a. Envelope constructing type:

     i. Strong force (SF) — constructing the envelopes for proton or neutron. Then, the residual of SF constructs the envelopes of nuclei.

 

     ii.  Electromagnetism force (EF) — constructing the envelopes of atoms and molecules. Then, it also constructs the envelopes of the “causal universe”.

 

     iii. Gravitational force (GF) — constructing the envelopes of large mass bodies. Then, it also constructs the envelope of a non-causal universe.

 

b. Envelope penetrating type: It goes into an envelope or breaks out from one, the Weak force (WF).

 

 

The above description can also be viewed in terms of an automobile, as the universe is evolving “forward”. The constructing type is the “forward” gears while the penetrating type is the “reverse” gear.

 

Then, we can go one more step; viewing these forces are building an amphitheater (without ceiling and walls) with chairs and stages, similar to the universe with quarks, nuclei, …, galaxies, etc.. The constructing force are “making” chairs, sections, …, stages. The penetrating force “brings” audiences and actors from one chair to another or from one section to a different one. That is, the WF is the usher of the theater.

 

In the case of unifying these forces, knowing their functionalities are much more important than knowing their strengths. Even if their coupling strengths are exactly the same, they can still be completely different forces. Yet, knowing their strengths converge at some certain situations is still a great knowledge about them.

 

With this amphitheater model, the forces classification (degeneration) is the results of that theater’s framework and functionalities. That is, there is a “fundamental/emergent” relationship, or the force-genealogy as follow:

 

Force (degenerated) = K (degenerated) F(unified), K is the coupling constant.

 

F (unified) = ħ / (delta T * delta S) ; T, time; S, space.

 

This unified force equation shows the “sources” of all degenerated forces. The degenerated K (couplings) is caused by different “charges” (job-types).

 

With different language, a story can be told differently. In this story, the alpha (α) is not only the coupling constant for electromagnetism but is the “manager” for all other charges, as it is a “lock” which locks the three most fundamental nature constants (ħ, C and e).

 

 

What is charge? This is again a language issue.

 

I was charged 10 dollars for the movie and 100 dollars for the dinner. “Money” is a universal charge. Yet, in general, different action demands different charge. As “no money, no fun”, it is the same that “no charge, no action”. If a force without a charge, it can produce no action.

 

Yet, what is charge? Charge is the “measurement” for the action it has done. That is, “charge” is in fact a “measuring ruler”.

 

What is e (electric charge)? Well, what is “e” measuring? “e”-charge measures the “size” of the “causal universe”. The part of this universe beyond this causal universe is called beyond the “event horizon”.

 

What is m (mass-charge) measuring? “m”-charge measures the “size” of the internal “envelope”, such as the quark-envelope or the proton-envelope. If there are envelopes beyond the event horizon, m-charge will measure them too. That is, the m-charge has the power going over the event horizon. If there is an invisible envelope, m-charge will measure it too. 

 

The Relativity theories “fail” to encompass the quantum principle which is definitely one attribute of Nature. A “failure” cannot be correct. That is, the relativity theories are simply wrong, partially correct at the best. This same logic works on the quantum principle too.

 

Einstein simply did not know a simple “super unified” force equation, as below;

 

Force (degenerated) = K (degenerated) F(unified), K is the coupling constant.

 

F (unified) = ħ / (delta T * delta S) ; T, time; S, space.

 

Now, here comes the quantum principle.

 

Delta P * Delta S = Force * Delta T * Delta S = K (degenerated) ħ

 

The “strength” of the quantum effect is determined by K (the coupling).

 

 

If anyone is able to derive this super unified force equation and all those K’s, his theory cannot be wrong. In fact, he needs only derive one of the K, the Alpha, and he will be on the path to the Super Unification. Otherwise, he is … .

 

 

@S. Dino: “… – until and unless an Experiment, I repeat – an EXPERIMENT – blows a hole in current theory.  … Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. It is experiment that makes all the difference…no Earth shaking experiment… .”

 

You are, indeed, describing the current situation, but your position is simply wrong. For the modern physics, almost all experiments are “planned”, that is, for verifying a “pre”-diction. Premises are always coming before experiment. No new concept, no new experiment. Concept is the King, experiment the squire.

 

 

@S. Dino: “… Relativity has passed every experimental (there is that word again) test thrown at it thus far, …”

 

This is the minimum requirement for any theory. But, it again shows that the essence of all experiments is bound by “limitations”, as we know all too well that Relativities are incomplete theory both factually and conceptually.

 

Today, every high school student knows that both Relativities and quantum principle are partial theories and to a great extent that they are mutually exclusive. Thus,

a. Trying to encompass Relativity “by” quantum principle (such as, the quantum gravity),

b. Trying to encompass Quantum world “by” Relativity (such as, Weinstein’s work),

 

are simply wrong even at the conceptual level, and no experiment is needed to reach this conclusion. The only way to success for unifying them is having a “base” underneath both Relativity and Quantum principle. That is, both Relativity and Quantum principle are the emergent of this base. This is the prerequisite for any TOE.

 

In essence, experiment is only a squire while its capability is very limited. Yet, the mystery of Nature might be hiding at a place way beyond the reach of any kind of human gadget forever. Now, even many diehard gadget testing supporters are contemplating this dire reality, such as,

 

Philip Gibbs wrote: “What happens if a theory is eventually found to be uniquely consistent with all known observations but its characteristic predictions are all beyond technical means?”

 

Luboš Motl wrote: “While the divorce may be frustrating, it’s a part of progress and a sign of progress that we may successfully answer questions that are extremely far from our abilities to directly experimentally test them; …”.

 

Fortunately, there is “knowledge” which absolutely needs no experiment, as some of them have been experimentally verified zillion times, that is, they have grown out from the experiment-crib. These knowledge gain a new name, physics facts.

 

There is another very important kind of knowledge which is based on these physics facts, with two parts.

 

a. A system — with a “base”, a set of evolving rules and a set of definite “consequences (not prediction)”.  

b. A set of physics facts as the checking list (or the landmarks).

 

If the “map” of this system does not check out with one of the landmarks, something is wrong. On the other hand, if this map marches with all the known landmarks, its other “consequences (not predictions)” can be comfortably accepted as “knowledge-candidate” which is witnessed by all those known physics facts. 

 

Matt said on March 15, 2013 (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/15/from-higgs-like-particle-to-standard-model-like-higgs/ ),  “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.  … , 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.”

 

Matt’s conviction above is obviously the result of knowledge, not of the result of any experimental data. Matt said on March 18, 2013, (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/18/review-of-the-higgs-to-2-photon-data/ )”,   “So as far as the Higgs particle’s decays to two photons, …; and we have no choice but to accept that the current situation is ambiguous …  (For those who got all excited last July;  you were warned that the uncertainties were very large and the excess might well be ephemeral.)”

 

We are now trapped in the old concepts, and a chance for any experiment (planned from those old concepts) to blow a big hole to that old concepts is not very good. Only experiment is planned to looking for the new concept can blow a hole to the old concepts.

 

Conversations on physics epistemology, beauty-contest

@L. Edgar Otto: ” Generations as I understand them in my Quasic theory are certainly not ad hoc say as mass and gravity seems to be in the measurement by string theory or other physics.  … But can you see or apply these ideas like game theories in simple informational arithmetic, in information.”

 

Thanks for your comments. I did a bit more explanation on this generation issue at http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/05/23/how-icecube-observes-neutrinos-from-the-cosmos/  ).

 

The key issue here is about the “methodology” and the “epistemology” of physics. The people on the two side of the spectrum (Gibbs and Motl) have converged to a similar opinion, away from blindly worshipping the gadget (testing and data) epistemology. This is truly a great progress on physics, more important than the newly discovered boson at LHC.

 

Philip Gibbs wrote: “What happens if a theory is eventually found to be uniquely consistent with all known observations but its characteristic predictions are all beyond technical means?”

 

Luboš Motl wrote: “While the divorce may be frustrating, it’s a part of progress and a sign of progress that we may successfully answer questions that are extremely far from our abilities to directly experimentally test them; and on the contrary, we may perform experiments whose results may be hard to calculate (which is why most of these experiments may be considered to be “irrelevant mess” by the theorists). The increasing separation is inevitably linked to the ability of theorists to think about the natural phenomena ever more cleverly and indirectly; and to the experimenters’ ability to test things well beyond those that seem simple to the theorists.”

 

 

Today, physics must face a new reality, our ability to “design” a universe in competition with the Nature. If many consequences of our design are identical to Nature’s, then our design criteria (not premises of a theory) are just as good as the Nature’s. And, there are many, many sign-posts of Nature can be compared to, such as,

 

1. Cabibbo and Weinberg angles

2. Is Alpha = 1/Beta?

3. Is Neff = 3?

4. Is there dark energy? How is it manifested?

5. Is there dark mass? What is it?

6. Is there a SM-Higgs-like boson?

 

This will be a new methodology and epistemology of physics, and it will and must replace the gadget testing (data) only mentality.

 

 

@L. Edgar Otto: “ … we certainly seem to influence our own directions of evolution. …”

 

This is a very important yet different issue, and I will not discuss it here. For the methodology and epistemology issue, allow me to make it a bit clearer.

 

a. Old school — “premises, theory, predictions, gadget verification”.

 

b. New school — “design criteria, constructing, designed product (consequences and outcomes), beauty-contest”.

 

Now, we know quite a few “physics” facts (realities) of Nature.

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

 

ii.  Nature constants (Alpha, c, e, ħ, etc.) and some  quantum parameters (Cabibbo and Weinberg angles), etc. .

 

iii. Neutrino oscillations, etc..

 

For those simple physics facts above, the Standard Model cannot make any contact with them, let alone to derive them. Thus, the highest grade that the Standard Model can get is a big “F” (failed). The fact is that the Standard Model is only a hodgepodge of gadget data (cannot be wrong by having more of those similar data) but has zero theoretical foundation (to give rise to time, space, etc.).  

 

On the other hand, for the “designed (not discovered)” physics, it must do at least as good as Nature’s design if not better in the beauty-contest. That is, it must not only derive all physics facts above but must give rise to all other Nature facts (the rise of life, the intelligence, the morality, Mathematics, etc.). The design-criteria are that all known Nature facts must be reproduced in this designed universe.  Yet, any link between the physics (of any kind) and morality will immediately “make the day” for those “crackpot Bishops” who ordain (or confer) it with an honorary title “the Greatest Crackpot”.  Thus, I will reduce the design-criteria to a simpler one: “All (structures) things in Mathematics must be “derived” with this designed-physics, and vice-verse. That is, mathematics is no longer a “tool” for physics but must derive all physics principles with its “structures”; for example, the uncertainty principle must be a “manifestation” of mathematics structure. And, indeed, it is.

 

What the “heck” is the prime numbers? Prime number simply indicates that it cannot be “reached” by “multiplication operation (MO)”. So every prime can be written with the equation,

         Prime (X) = MO (y, z) + delta (x)

In fact, there are numbers (infinitely many) which cannot be reached by any type of “Algebra Operation (AO)” and it can be written as,

       N(y) = AO (a, b, c, …) + delta (y)

As both space and time dimensions (coordinates) are simply number-lines, the uncertainty principle must be the direct outcome of those delta(s). Now, a physics principle is not simply written with mathematic symbols but is the consequence of the number-theory. From here, we can easily unify the quantum and the determinism, but not this time. We should talk about the hottest issue of the day (the Higgs) in this beauty-contest.

 

In this designed-physics, there are two types of “decay”.

 

a. A player (V or A) moves from one chair to another while drops one or two shoes.

b. A “system” decay.

 

Every system consists of two parts.

i. The “internal” — having “n” chairs.

ii. The “external” — surrounded by a sea of (virtue) chairs.

 

When an internal chair is captured (arrested) by external chairs, the system breaks up (must decay). If the external chairs 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, and there is no Higgs issue here. Thus, I will only talk about the neutron decay.

 

In Standard Model, d-quark is forced to get a sex-change into a u-quark by the suddenly appeared Angel (the W-). Then, this angel flies away as an electron and an anti-e-neutrino. In order to make some sense of this angel story, a Higgs egg was invented, as the angel was hiding in the egg all this time.

 

In this music-chair physics, the story is a bit different. The three lonely chairs (u, d, d) cannot do the self-playing. It opens up its door and let in two external chairs {(u, u-) or (d, d-)}. Now, a three chair system is having “5” chairs, that is, the decay-product must have five chairs total. In the case of (d, d-) entered, two music-chair games are played (the laws of energy, quark colors, electric charge, etc. must be obeyed).

 

a. Game 1: The players movement change (-d, d) into (-u, u) chairs. No hiding angel is needed at this time.

 

b. Game 2: The players exchange in (-u, -d), and it results of e and anti-e-neutrino.

 

The detailed schematic of this neutron-decay is available at (http://www.prequark.org/Q2.htm ). In this new story, the game 2 is the manifestation of the old friend (the W-). The blob of game 1 is now mistakenly identified as the SM Higgs. With today’s technology, it will be quite difficult for LHC to distinguish the chair-blob from the imagined Higgs egg. Yet, the consequences of two can be easily seen.

 

i. The Higgs — leads the physics into a dead-end, no way out.

 

ii. The music-chair-physics — be able to have a beauty-contest with the Nature in all areas, physics, mathematics, lives, intelligence, etc..

 

 

@L. Edgar Otto: “Robert- what sort of predictions would you accept? So many seem to write papers after the fact so it fits in their system. But what do you do if all your life there where things that came to pass and now would seem like a retroactive prediction?”

 

For any given number, it can be always approached by, at least, one numerological equation. For any given physics result, it is not hard to come up a theory to encompass it.

 

On the other hand, a “system” (not theory) has a set of definitely outcomes regardless of the predictions or the postdictions (retroactive predictions).  That is, the validity of a “system” must be judged with its internal framework and its “necessary” outcomes, not about the predictions or the postdictions.

 

Furthermore, if a “system” can encompass more than one un-related postdictions, it then goes way beyond of retroactive predictions.

 

 

 @Robert L. Oldershaw: “let them prove that by showing that their ideas generate and pass definitive predictions. …  Definitive predictions are feasibly tested, made prior to testing, are quantitative or very uniquely qualitative, are NON-ADJUSTABLE, and are unique to the theory being tested. … These definitive predictions are what guides science to real discoveries and what identifies pseudo-science as the untestable rubbish that it is.”

 

Your position is not new but a reiterate of the very old one. Indeed, many very prominent physicists are going “off” from this old school, such as the M-theory or F-theory which predicts something way beyond the reach of any human gadget in the foreseeable future. Your demand is in fact giving them a hiding place. We should simply ask them to show what they can do to produce what are known, to reproduce all known physics from their theories.

 

This is where the “design-epistemology” comes in. That is, the argument of predictions or postdictions is no more but is replaced by a “beauty-contest” which encompasses not one or a few predictions but “all” aspects of Nature. Yet, this new epistemology has some very strict rules.

 

a. No known physics (principles, laws, data, etc.) can be a part of the design “base”. That is, no known physics can be “put-in” at the base.

 

b. No known physics can be a part of the design “procedure”.

 

c. The design “outcomes” can then enter the beauty-contest with the Nature, in all aspects (physics, mathematics, biology, philosophy and all the whatnot).

 

 

 @Robert L. Oldershaw: “In science the authority of 1,000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

 

What you said is a “moral” law which is a bit higher than the physics law. In the music-chair game, a system will not decay if it can keep a “self-playing” going, especially when there is no external force powerful enough to disturb its internal dynamics. Both the M-theory wonderland and the Higgs game have enough internal energy, and they will not decay for a long while yet. But, they will eventually disintegrate when the true truth is known by about 14% [(1/e) ^2] of the population.

 

 

@Robert L. Oldershaw: “A far more important “core issue” today is the nature of the enigmatic dark matter…  Discrete Scale Relativity predicts exactly what the dark matter is and these predictions have been published in the Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987.”

 

Bad, bad, bad. Is your “prediction” any different from those of M-theory? If you can reduce “your theory” to a base without any “known physics (principles, laws, data, etc.)” while you can reconstruct the entire “known physics” from that base, your theory cannot be wrong.

 

Some of these conversation was posted at (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/#comments )

  

 

 

 

 

G-string and dark energy

Philip Gibbs wrote an article “Naturally Unnatural” about his view on the multiverse issue. His key argument is about “The universe might not make sense… . The Nature is unnatural — that physical laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time”. Yet, he and others think that “… that the standard model will fall out of string theory in a unique way” eventually. And, if this happens, we should accept that the string theory is correct.

I would like to make this view into a law.

Theory A (TA) has a set premises and predictions (PA) with consequences (CA), and there are a set of known physics facts (PF [including the topmost proved phenomenological theories]).

Law 1: If PA is beyond the reach by any gadget in a foreseeable future but CA is encompassing the PF, then TA is deemed to be correct.

With this law, string theory could be correct if it can “reproduce” the basic feature of the Standard Model which is proved phenomenological theory. Let’s start with a very small part of the SM to begin with. Can string theory reproduce the followings?

a. “Exactly” 48 elementary particles, 2 x (18 quarks + 6 leptons). It will be a bonus, if it predicts more. But, these 48 must be precisely derived.

b. Neff = 3 must be precisely derived in a subsystem. That is, Neff > 3 is allowed beyond that subsystem.

c. Quark color must be a theoretical consequence, not a phenomenological result.

Let’s make the above list simpler. If M-string theory can “clearly” identify a “particular” string which can be written as string x = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ) = red up quark, then M-string theory must be correct.

We should give M-string theory one more chance. There is a subset of PF {α (electron fine structure constant), Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, etc.}. If string theory can derive these “theoretically”, then it must be correct.

With Law 1, we should have law 2.

For TA, the gadget testing is exempt (waived), and it can roam complete “free theoretically”. That is, no “prediction” of any kind is needed from TA. The only task of TA is to “encompass” the proved topmost phenomenological theory, that is to produce it “directly”, such as string x = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ) = red up quark.

Law 2: If TA fails to accomplish the task above after it is worked over 20 years period by over 1,000 scholars, then, the premises of TA is inadequate, simply wrong.

After one thousand people roaming free theoretically (without any physical restraint) over 20 years, the chance that any Alice Wonderland which is still hidden (not discovered) is very small. Thus, the validity of the Law 2 is very much guaranteed.

Being given a complete freedom roaming “theoretically”, when a “pure theoretically construct” cannot making contact to some well-known and proved physics realities, it cannot have any physics value regardless of how wonderfully correct it is otherwise.

Thus, M-string theory must not be killed by lacking a testable prediction as the “testable” is 100% gadget dependent, and the capability of any gadget is limited by the human stupidity, nothing to do with the greatness of the Nature.

On the other hand, while M-string theory can have zillion strings and zillion untestable predictions, it must meet one criterion, making contact to the known physics. It must produce 48 strings (out of those zillions) as follow:

String 1 = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.
String 2 = {1st , red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.
String 3 = {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

String 7 = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).
String 8 = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.
String 9 = {2nd , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

String 48 = – {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino.

Being given unlimited (infinite) theoretical reasoning power (without any hindrance of any gadget testing), if M-string theory cannot produce and identify those 48 strings (out of its zillion strings), then M-string theory is simple “Wrong” as a physics theory.

By all means, I do love string theory. With unlimited freedom on swinging the theoretical reasoning sword, no challenge of any kind can fail us, such as, the questions of “what is time?” or “where is the time coming from?” Yet, I would like to start with an easier challenge, producing 48 known elementary particles with strings. We only need to “engineer” two types of building blocks.

a. The “line-string” (not ring-string): it has two “ends” and a “segment” which connects the two “ends”. That is, this line-string has three parts and can be written as (a, b, c). Yet, when this line-string joins and forms a ring string, the difference among (a, b, c) disappears. That is, the (a, b, c) can be described with a color system. Thus, I will change (a, b, c) as (red, yellow, blue), as below.
Ling-string = (red, yellow, blue) = (r, y, b)
That is, the distinguishable parts of the ling-string are in fact following a color-rules.

Yet, I would like to “engineer” three different ling-strings, purely by engineering. And, each string carries a (½ ħ).
Ling-string (1) = (r, y, b 1)
Ling-string (2) = (r, y, b 2)
Ling-string (3) = (r, y, b 3)

b. I am using these three ling-strings to make a set of music chairs. That is, I need some players to play this music-chair game. I “engineer” two types of players, V and A.
V is transparent and carries 0 electric charges.
A is opaque and carries 1/3 electric charge.

The above is all I need. With them, there are some rules (theorem) for this music –chair game.
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 reproduce all 48 known elementary particles, as below,

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

String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = e (electron).
String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = e-neutrino.
String 9 = (V, A, A 2) {2nd , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

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

We have produced (engineered) all the known elementary particles by engineering two building material and one game (music-chair) rule. That is, the above strings have internal structure, the result of the music-chair game. These 48 strings are all different.

Of course, this string theory is significantly different from all other string-theories (the M-theory, the F-theory, etc.). I call it the string theory “G”, the G-theory.

The G-string was presented as only an engineering designed music –chair game. It is not the same as the M-theory string which is a strip-down string (without any internal structure) doing the sweeping to form some branes or making a suicide dive into a black hole in order to change its entropy. The G-string has an internal structure (with bells and whistles, [V and A]) and plays only the music-chair game. Yet, this game has many interesting properties and consequences. I will discuss the simplest five below.

A. For one Line-string (a, b, c), it can produce “8” distinguishable music-chairs, {3 up-quark-like, 3 “anti”-down-quark-like, one electron-like, one e-neutrino-like}. Thus, if we want to produce a proton-like string (a ring-string), we need “8” more “anti”-music-chairs. Now, we have two very important consequences.

i. The matter-like/anti-matter-like chairs are not divided by a “mirror”. That is, the matter/anti-matter symmetry is broken intrinsically.

ii. In order to form a proton-like string, we need “16” music-chairs as the “domain”. That is, one Line string (a, b, c) must produce “16” music-chairs (with matter-like/anti-matter-like). In fact, the matter and anti-matter are entangled in this design.

B. When we push this music-chair game to its limit (infinite number of tiers deep), all the rules of the game is confined (locked) by a dimensionless pure number, Beta.

Beta = 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 + …

How to derive this number Beta is available online, and I thus will not repeat it here. But, we can get two very important consequences from the Beta equation. It contains two simple numbers {64, 48} which are the numbers for the music-chair counts.

C. The “64” is the maximum number of music-chair allowed in the game. But, only “48” chairs are available for the players (V and A). Why? They are the results of the game rules and are a bit deep, and thus, I will not go into them here. But, from here, we do know the scope of the game.

One type (team) of Line-string covers “16” chairs. Thus, the entire field allows only “3” teams to play, as 48/16 = 3. That is, the Neff of this game is “3”.

D. There are “16” music-chair not reachable by the players. They are the dark-energy of the game.

E. While the game is only played by “team one” (visible masses) currently, the other music-chairs do carry weights (the dark-mass), see (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/08/dark-matter-mystery-no-more-part-2.html ).

The five above roughly outline the scope of this music-chair game. If anyone asks, “Is G-string theory correct?” It will be the stupidest question, as this G-string is only a designed music-chair game, having nothing to do with the gadget testing or gadget data. The only question that I will ask is whether the “Nature” plagiarized this G-string design when it created this physical universe.

This comment was originally posted at (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/ ).

Dark mass vs dark particles

 

As you (Professor Matt Strassler) have showed that the mass of [(u, u, d), the ID of a proton] accounts for only 5% of proton’s mass. That is, the 95% of proton’s mass is “dark”, not clearly identified by its ID. Linguistically, there is a “dark mass” for proton.

 

The Planck data should be taken as a “fact”, that is, 95% of the mass (energy) of the universe is dark. And, this Planck data can be “numerological” described with an iceberg model. Of course, “numerology” can be quickly discounted as non-science, but it can still be a hint of how a physics framework should be like. Especially, when this numerological description works on more than one physics fact, that is, for both the proton’s mass and the Planck’s data.

 

For the iceberg model (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html ), it goes way beyond as numerology but has ontological meaning, that is, “all” existences must be iceberg-like.

a. All relativism is a subset of the iceberg-model. There cannot have a beauty if no ugly; no long if no short, etc. .

b. The Empire State Building cannot be a reality if there is no big earth and big air space around it. That is, its mass (existence) cannot be counted as the mass of its visible buildings. It carries a big “dark mass”.

c. Our lives (yours and mine) are chain-locked to big space with our digest track as that chain. When that track is severed from that outside space, our live- existence ends. Thus, our body mass is a bit larger than the number on a scale.

 

Of course, someone can choose to view all the above as the non-science nonsense. But, when a particle theory is exactly as this iceberg-model, the above becomes the criteria for all theories.

 

Thus, the issue is whether we need any “additional” dark mass to account for either proton’s or the Universe’s mass. Are we looking for dark mass to fit the Planck’s data?  Or, are we looking for dark “particle” which makes up both proton’s and the Universe’s dark mass?

As the dark mass (including the dark energy) is very much a fact for this universe, it (dark mass) nonetheless needs not to be the result of the dark matter, as some other models can describe it. If we make “dark mass = dark matter” (while not “100%” accurate in physics), it will be linguistically wrong in addition to being wrong in physics.

 

a. Dark mass is a “Fact” in physics.

b. Dark mass is an essential part of every “existence (such as proton, life or the universe)”, demanded ontologically.

c. Dark matter (particle) is a speculative idea, trying as an explanation for dark mass in some models.

d. Dark mass needs no dark matter, as some other models account for dark mass without the need of any kind of dark matter.

       

There is a significant difference between the “dark mass” and the “dark particle”.

 

The comment was originally posted at (http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/dark-matter/current-hints-of-dark-matter-413/#comment-56471 )