Sunday, July 15, 2012

The nightmare vs. the new era

On July 4, 2012, CERN announced the discovery of a new elementary particle. If it is the Standard Model Higgs boson, it will be a triumph for the Standard Model but a nightmare for physics, that is, no sign of any new physics in the horizon while it is now a fact that Standard model is not complete. If it is not a SM Higgs boson, then this new particle must be the gateway for new physics, the beginning of a new era.

With the above fact, I made a comment at a particle physics blog ( ), 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. Have you ever considered covering this spot about Higgs (being a shadow of the reality)?”

After the July 4th CERN news conference, many physics blogs openly announced that the SM Higgs boson was discovered. However, for public who read the New York Times report on that news conference, he will not know that the SM Higgs was officially discovered.

In the article “Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe (by DENNIS OVERBYE, The New York Times, on July 4, 2012, )”, it wrote, “ He [Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director general of CERN] and others said that it was too soon to know for sure, however, whether the new particle is the one predicted by the Standard Model, … It may be an impostor as yet unknown to physics, perhaps the first of many particles yet to be discovered.  …
That possibility is particularly exciting to physicists, as it could point the way to new, deeper ideas, beyond the Standard Model, about the nature of reality.
For now, some physicists are simply calling it a “Higgslike” particle.  … So far, the physicists admit, they know little about their new boson.”

Even for Nature, the easiest way to avoid this nightmare is having a different mechanism which can both replace the Higgs mechanism and provide a path to new physics.

First, it must be a new physics, dramatically different from Higgs idea but encompassing the Higgs mechanism. That is, the Higgs mechanism must be a subset of this new physics.

Second, it must describe “neutron” decay, and this is the minimum criterion for this new physics.

Third, it must describe the lepton decays (such as tau and muon). With this, it will be the Bingo.

Indeed, there is a better mechanism than the Higgs’ already available, and it does give a path to new physics in addition to replace the Higgs. The comparison between the two (this new mechanism and the Higgs’) is available at .

Now, the nightmare is no more. The new era has begun.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Higgs rumors vs. the rumor

In the article “The Higgs Discovery, “, Peter Woit wrote, “Reliable rumors couldn’t wait, and they indicate that the experiments are seeing much the same thing as last year in this year’s new data: strong hints of a Higgs around 125 GeV. The main channel investigated is the gamma-gamma channel where they are each seeing about a 4 sigma signal.”

This is a rumor which tries to announce the Higgs discovery before anyone else. Then,
In the article “New Data on Elusive Particle Shrouded in Secrecy (by DENNIS OVERBYE,  June 19, 2012 )”,  it reported two statements from the authorities of LHC.

“’Please do not believe the blogs,’ Fabiola Gianotti, the spokeswoman for the team known as Atlas, after its huge detector, pleaded in an e-mail. “

“’Our final Ichep results will not be even seen by the collaboration before the last day of June and then will require the usual final cosmetics for presentation,’ wrote Joe Incandela of the University of California, Santa Barbara, spokesman for the team known as CMS, in an e-mail. “

Are these two official statements rumor-stoppers or rumors themselves?

Then, there comes the verdict with the article “Rumor Has It: Higgs Buzz Sparks Twitter Trend (by  Jennifer Ouellette, )”, it wrote, “Just before 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2012, the elusive Higgs boson made science history: it topped the list of trending Twitter topics via the hashtag #HiggsRumors. …
Whatever they are, the results will be announced at the International Conference on High Energy Physics, or ICHEP, in Melbourne, Australia, starting July 4 [2012]. So, you know, chillax, people. We'll know one way or the other in just a few weeks.”

Can the announcement at ICHEP stop all rumors? In 2011, the biggest rumor was announced by OPERA on the “Superluminal Neutrinos”. If an announcement of the discovery of the Standard Model Higgs at ICHEP this July, it would be the greatest rumor in 2012, as it will definitely be another OPERA fiasco.  The entire Higgs idea (field or bosons) is only the shadow of the reality, and it is described in the article “Higgs Boson, a shadow of the Prequark field, “. 

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Four pop-outs

In a TV interview ( ), Jim Holt (The New Yorker, New York Times Magazine) and John Leslie discussed the following very interesting issues.

a.  How to have immortality without God?
b.  Why is there something rather than nothing?
c.  Is universe created with physics laws or with the moral laws?

These different issues are, in fact, all coming out from the center one, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer is truly simple. “Something and nothing” are ontologically not mutually exclusive but mutually immanent. They are the two sides of the same coin, and this is described in detail in the article “Law of Creation, “.

In fact, the evolution of this universe has four pop-outs (creations).
1. The pop out of space-time.
2. The pop out of biological lives.
3. The pop out of intelligence.
4. The pop out of morality.

While there are four pop-outs, there is only one pop-out law, and this is discussed in detail in the article “Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part seven, “.  Thus, John Leslie’s view that this universe was created by Moral laws is as good as the view that it was popped out with physics laws.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Take the Kuhn-loss and move on

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (the most influential philosopher of science of the twentieth century, ) wrote, “Not all the achievements of the preceding period of normal science are preserved in a revolution, and indeed a later period of science may find itself without an explanation for a phenomenon that in an earlier period was held to be successfully explained.”  This feature of scientific revolutions has become known as ‘Kuhn-loss’.

In the article “New CERN Results On Rare B Decays: A Tombstone To SUSY? “, it wrote, “..., while the various Minimal Supersymmetric models depicted in the graph are close to being killed by the experimental constraints.   
But you can certainly take refuge in the belief that only one is the ‘true’ set of SUSY parameters, and that excluding all other sets does not make that less probable. It depends on your prior beliefs.”

The LHC data is now ruling out many SUSY (with s-particles) while many physicists are denying those facts with their “prior” beliefs. But, this kind of self-denial can never escape from the inevitable “Kuhn-loss”. 

Kuhn again said that “The decision to opt for a revision of a disciplinary matrix [new paradigm] is not one that is rationally compelled; nor is the particular choice of revision rationally compelled.” Yet, however the tortuous path that science must take, there is no way of any kind to go around the truth which sits there silently. Physics must take the Kuhn-loss eventually and face the truth squarely sooner or later. The article “LHC, the end of the old physics epistemology, “ is showing a way for us to move on. 

Friday, June 8, 2012

Nowhere to run!

Most of scientists believe that  “Science is not about beliefs but is about facts and explanations.” Yet, Thomas Samuel Kuhn (philosopher of science) held a contrasting view “That we judge the quality of a theory (and its treatment of the evidence) by comparing it to a paradigmatic theory.” That is, science judges a theory not about its merits or its evidences. Science is not about facts but is about beliefs on a paradigm.

As scientific revolutions involve a revision to existing scientific belief or practice (the paradigm), science in general ignores and discredits any revolutionary ideas. Kuhn's view is that during normal science scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix [paradigm]. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories.  … Rather, anomalies are ignored or explained away if at all possible. It is only the accumulation of particularly troublesome anomalies that poses a serious problem for the existing disciplinary matrix. A particularly troublesome anomaly is one that undermines the practice of normal science. ... A widespread failure in such confidence Kuhn calls a ‘crisis’.

Yet, although the truth and facts are sitting there silently, science can never go around them. There is no place for science to run but to face those facts squarely sooner or later. The followings are those simple facts.

1. The Prequark Chromodynamics ( ) simply reproduces the entire quark universe. 

2. The “Super Unified Theory” (SUT) simply gives a better (but correct) explanation for the electroweak symmetry breaking ( ).

3. The SUT simply provides theoretical calculations for Cabibbo angle (θc), Weinberg angle (θW ) and the Alpha (the electron fine structure constant), . To calculate these three independent parameters with a single thread is either a result of the facts or a miracle. 

4. The “accelerating expansion of Universe” is a direct consequence of this SUT, .

5. “No fourth generation matter” is again a direct consequence of the SUT, .

These facts above can never be gone around by any means.