
This iTWire.com article is part two of a threepart interview with the author of a cosmological theory called extended Standard Model, or xSM.
The author, European amateur theoretical physicist Stig Sundman, states that an elementaryparticle model, which he has dubbed the 'extended Standard Model,' can explain why and how our present universe came to be and how it evolved over its billions of years of existence.
The original (August 10, 2009) iTWire article, which introduced his theory, is entitled 'Predictive Cosmology: Creation's secret revealed in muonelectron mass ratio = 206.768 283'.
The article went into detail about the three forces of nature that govern the microscopic world of elementary particles: electromagnetic, strong, and weak.
The first questionandanswer interview, which appeared December 21, 2009 on iTWire.com, is entitled 'Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited.'
The first Q&A article consisted of a series of introductory questions posed to Stig Sundman about his theory. Some highlights of the first interview were:
'¢ A description of the initial stages of the universe.
'¢ The farreaching consequences within xSM of the conservation laws of both energy and momentum.
'¢ The crucial role that the 'pressureless momentum equation' plays within xSM.
'¢ Additional predictions and explanations resulting from the xSM theory.
Now, based on his papers and extending the earlier two iTWire.com articles, Stig answers a series of questions about his theory as posed to him by iTWire science writer William Atkins.
Some highlights of this secondofthreepart interview are:
'¢ Gravity as a consequence of the universe's expansion.
'¢ Does xSM theory signal the end of supersymmetry (SUSY), or of superstring theory?
'¢ Could xSM be used to calculate the finestructure constant alpha (Î±)?
Please note: For people interested in discussing Stig's ideas in more detail, please email William Atkins at william.atkins 'at' itwire.com and he will relay the information to Mr. Sundman.
Page two begins Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.

The interview begins with the following questions.
William: Thus far, physicists' search for a quantum theory for gravity has failed. Also, the massless spin2 graviton, which is assumed to mediate the gravitational force, hasn't been observed. What does your theory say about gravity?
Stig: 'The gravitational force is a byproduct of expansion. It clumps particles together into macroscopic objects, such as planets, stars, and black holes. However, in its first three phases, the universe is in an indeterminate quantum state. This means that no interactions'”neither electromagnetic nor gravitational'”occur between the outward neutral and spinless particle pairs that inhabit the universe. In other words, there exists no kinetic energy'”no temperature in the conventional sense of the word. Only after the antiproton's decay and the appearance of stable matter, has gravity a role to play.'
William: So, do you believe that gravitons exist?
Stig: 'I don't know what to believe because the gravitational force is so different from the three other forces. Also, the pressureless momentum equation'”the extension to SM'”says nothing about dynamics and predicts neither gravitons nor photons. However, since other forces are known to be mediated by gauge bosons, it seems plausible that also gravity might be mediated by a particle'”the graviton.'
William: Now, assuming that gravitons exist, when did they first appear?
Stig: 'The principle of maximum simplicity implies that the universe at each stage of its evolution is maximally simple. One consequence of the principle is that particles possess the maximum symmetry possible in each phase. Thus, the evolution of the universe may be summarized as a series of symmetry breakings: Perfect symmetry of literally nothing (where neither space nor time exist) â†’ neutral spinless D particle â†’ charged spinless leptons â†’ charged spinning leptons â†’ today's not very symmetric set of elementary particles.'
'Another consequence of the principle of maximum simplicity is Occam's razor, a maxim, which when applied to gravity says that as long as there is no need for gravitons (which is the case in the universe's phases 1, 2, and 3), they must not be assumed to exist. Therefore, if they do exist, they should appear in the present phase 4 for the first time.'
Page three continues Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.
The interview continues with the following questions.

William: What about supersymmetry'”a theory which predicts that 'ordinary' particles have 'superpartners,' such as the selectron, squark, photino, and Higgsino, which so far haven't been observed? Doesn't your theory exclude their existence?
Stig: 'No, the theory does not exclude supersymmetry (SUSY) or superstrings. What it says is that, when the first proton and antiproton appears, no other real massive particle exists, since, if such a particle existed, the annihilation of the proton pair would be allowed. That is, the antiproton wouldn't be forced to decay alone to ensure continued presence of matter in the universe.'
'Possibly, virtual superparticles (or other virtual exotic particles) already appear together with the first quarks. However, since superstring theory naturally contains the spin2 graviton, it appears more plausible that, when the global law of conservation of energy causes the antiproton to decay, it also forces the graviton into existence together with the gravitino and the rest of the superpartners.'
'Still, Occam's razor suggests that no other real massive particle than the electron was produced in the antiproton decay. Thereby, it implies that a possibly existing 'lightest superpartner' (LSP) should have been created for the first time in blackhole formation, a process that began very soon after the antiproton decay and which would have caused all matter and radiation in the universe to be swallowed by black holes if it hadn't been for the universe's rapid expansion, which was accompanied by a rapid decrease in the initially enormously strong gravitational force.'
William: Superstring theory and the more recently proposed M theory require the existence of many dimensions. What does your theory say about the number of dimensions?
Stig: 'The Dirac particle, the charged (spinless and spinning) leptons, and the photons of the universe's first three phases are described in four dimensions (three spatial and one time dimension) by pure QED. Occam's razor requires that one refrains from assuming that curledup dimensions exist in these phases.'
'If more than four dimensions exist today, my guess is that they are needed in the formation of quarks. That is, they are necessary for the description of the strong force. However, to my understanding, the model says nothing about the number of these dimensions.'
Page four continues Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following questions.
William: You conclude on page 55 in 'Paper.pdf' that the natural time unit t_{c} (the initial age at which the universe was born) is about 10^{19} seconds. Shouldn't it be of interest to know also the value of the universe's initial radius?
Stig: 'The age of the universe is the fundamental variable to which everything else relates in the computer simulation of the universe. Even if I use the radius of the universe as an auxiliary variable in the calculations, it is not required. This circumstance reflects the fact that position and distance are undefinable in a space void of reference points comparable to the molecules that provide reference points in physical fluids. It implies that distance and size are macroscopic concepts that cannot directly be related to the universe's initial radius in the same manner as time or time intervals may be related to its initial age.'
William: According to your theory, the universe in its present shape is preceded by a universe, which is inhabited only by photons and charged leptons. However, a universe without the strong force shouldn't be possible. Even if protons don't exist as real particles, quarks or protons should still exist in the form of virtual particles! Isn't this what quantum field theory (QFT) tells us?
Stig: 'In his book, Dr. Riemann's Zeros: The Search for the $1 Million Solution to the Greatest Problem in Mathematics (page 156), Karl Sabbagh writes:
This principle, summarized in a nutshell by GellMann, reflects the general sentiment among quantum physicists.'
'Applied to elementary particles, the principle says that, since all presently existing particles undeniably may exist, all of them must exist at all times'”even at the instant the universe is born.'
'This reasoning is impeccable'”provided that the universe at its inception is 'infinitely' hot and dense. However, the principle becomes untenable when one makes the more natural assumption that the universe at its beginning is maximally simple'”born as a single, and consequently noninteracting, massive particle. (In a singleparticle quantum universe, no forces exist because there are no particles to carry them.)'
'In this case, the principle requires modification. Here is an attempt:
And perhaps one should add that the law seems to stick to the rule 'simplest first.''
William: You very precisely predict the value of the muonelectron mass ratio. However, it may take many years before experiments are sufficiently precise to verify or refute your prediction. In the meantime, how could someone check your theory?
Stig: 'The calculation of the electroweak contributions to the muonelectron mass ratio gives much information about the weak force. For a summary, see the last page of a separate article on the Standard Model (SM) (StandardModel.pdf). In addition to experimentally verifying the theory's physical predictions (such as the neutrino masses), there are many ways to theoretically check the consistency of the theory. Here is one of them:"
'The Higgs contribution to the lepton mass (which should be the same as the mass of the Higgs boson itself, but with a negative sign) is obtained directly from electroweak theory. In contrast, the neutrino's contribution to the lepton mass (which should be the same as the neutrino's mass) is indirectly inferred from the Higgs mass. Its direct theoretical calculation remains to be done, and shouldn't require much effort from an experienced electroweak theorist (see diagram shown last in the figure on page 5 of "Neutrino and Higgs masses" (Higgs.pdf))."
'If the directly calculated value exactly matches the indirectly obtained value of the neutrino mass, it will provide one more check in a long row of verifications of the theory's consistency. However, a minor discrepancy should not come as a surprise. Instead of refuting the model, it would rather indicate the presence of new physics. For instance, it might indicate that some exotic particles (such as those predicted by supersymmetry) accompany the appearance of the quarks (even if no real massive'”ordinary or exotic'”particles other than the protonantiproton pair may exist a moment later, at the instant of the antiproton's decay).'
Page five continues Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following questions.
William: You attempted to calculate the exact value of the finestructure constant alpha (Î±), or rather its inverse value (which is known from experiments to be Î±^{1} = 137.035 9991). However, your attempt failed. Do you really believe that Î±^{1} is theoretically calculable from first principles to any desired number of decimal places? According to the strong anthropic principle (which suggests the existence of many universes with different values of the constants of nature'”most of these universes being unsuitable for life as we know it), one should expect that the value of Î±^{1} is impossible to unambiguously determine.
Stig: 'Mathematically, the computer simulation of the first phases of the universe cannot conceivably be simpler than it actually turned out to be. In phase 3, a secondorder equation for energy balance is solved, but in the first two phases only firstorder energybalance equations appear. My failed attempt to compute Î±^{1}, which is listed on pages 6465 in 'Paper.pdf', demonstrates the simplicity of the computer simulation of the first two phases, the actual calculation being performed in a 14statement program loop.'
'Since I see no reason why it shouldn't be theoretically calculable, my guess must be that Î±^{1} really is computable. However, its calculation may be difficult, perhaps requiring deep insight in both quantum theory and pathintegral methods. Also, if it requires the use of numerical MonteCarlo methods, its highprecision computation may well be impracticable even on a very powerful computer. Still, my experience suggests that its calculation will instead prove to be simpler than anybody can presently imagine.'
'If I am right, Î±^{1} will probably first be calculated by a highschool student adopting the same approach that I have consistently been using: experiment with mathematical equations and logic until you obtain a simple result that can somehow be interpreted in physical terms. If the result and its assumed interpretation are simpler than you could have ever imagined, then you may have stumbled upon something interesting.'
['When I was trying to understand how radiative corrections might contribute to the muonelectron mass ratio, I never dreamed of one day being able to understand why the weak force exists and why it is so complex. Those things required much deeper insight in elementary particle physics than I could ever hope to gain'”of that I was totally convinced. However, many years of stubborn mathematical experimentation resulted in some surprising revelations that gradually forced me to abandon my conviction.']
'Note that the only 'deeper' knowledge of physics needed in the simulation program is the understanding that Î”t = Ï„/N is the (average) time delay between a given decay (before which there were N + 1 particles) and the next decay of a particle when there are N unstable particles and Ï„ is the lifetime (also known as average life or mean life) of the particles. Usually, particle lifetimes are constant but, since the simulation is performed in the global picture, Ï„ varies over time, which is the reason why the calculation is not straightforward and my attempt failed.'
'Also note that it is not Î±^{1} itself one calculates, but the initial (uncorrected) values of the tauonmuon and muonelectron mass ratios, after which Î±^{1} is directly obtained from the latter value via Î±^{1} = Bm_{Î¼}/m_{e}, where B = 0.666 001 731 498 is a welldefined numerical constant given by the momentum equation for space."
William: Is there any other advice you would like to give those interested in the computation of the finestructure constant alpha?
Stig: 'Yes, I have an idea. To understand fully the Higgsneutrino mechanism and its role in the forming of the first proton, it proved necessary to perform calculations both in the global and local pictures. Similarly, determination of the lepton mass ratios (and via them Î±^{1}) might also require that the universe's first two phases are simulated in both pictures simultaneously. In our standard (local) picture, where the rest energy and lifetime of the lepton pairs remain constant, calculation of the decay rate is trivial. Now, the mass of the rematerialized particles is determined by the energy of the photons from which they are created. And, since this energy is determined by the global law of conservation of energy, the decrease in photon energy in each of the two phases has to be calculated in the global picture. Therefore, the problem is how time (that is, the age of the universe) in the global picture relates to time in the local picture. In other words, the question is: When (at a given instant of time in our standard local picture) a spinlesslepton pair annihilates, what is the corresponding time in the global picture?'
Page six continues Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following questions.
William: So, are you going to test your idea and again try to compute m_{Ï„}/m_{Î¼}, m_{Î¼}/m_{e}, and Î±^{1}?
Stig: 'No. I don't see much point in again attempting such a calculation. The value of Î±^{1} is already known with an accuracy that suffices for all practical purposes. Also, the muonelectron mass ratio is calculable from Î±^{1} with sufficient precision. (But, a precise theoretical value for m_{Ï„}/m_{Î¼} might be of interest.) A calculation of Î±^{1} to eight or more decimal places wouldn't prove anything (other than that it is possible). It wouldn't even disprove the strong anthropic principle, only provide a piece of evidence that tells against it.'
William: Suppose somebody presents a computer program that outputs the correct Î±^{1} value. How can you know it is not a hoax?
Stig: 'Artificial introductions of numerical constants (such as 2, 3, or pi) are banned, and the logic of the program's main loop shouldn't be much more complicated than it is in my failed attempt. If a program meeting these requirements produces a value that exactly matches Î±^{1} = 137.035 9991, the result would be difficult to dismiss as a 'chance result.' Naturally, an additional requirement is that the same program should output values for m_{Ï„}/m_{Î¼} and m_{Î¼}/m_{e}, which (upon addition of QED and weak corrections) match the corresponding experimental values.'
['Ever since it was first measured, the inverse value of the finestructure constant alpha has fascinated people. In his book, Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology, Constable, London (1961), Jagjit Singh explains how Arthur Eddington arrived at the prediction 136 for Î±^{1}. On page 178, Singh adds:
"I remember that, when I read the book, I became fascinated by my own observation that 10^{2} + 6^{2} + 1 + 6^{2} + 10^{2} = 137.0378 seemed to closely match the experimental Î±^{1} value of the time. Today, after the experimental value's accuracy has improved by several orders of magnitude, the chance of arriving in a simple and seemingly plausible way at an exactly matching value by playing with numbers is exceedingly small. A couple of recent attempts I have seen only appear to prove this point.']
William: As you say, much work remains to be done. Which of the open ends are you yourself presently focusing on?
Stig: 'Theoretical physics is team work. I have finished my part. It is time for others to take over and continue my work.'
Page seven continues Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following question.
William: So, what do you think will happen to your theory now, when you are no longer actively pursuing it?
Stig: 'Today's cosmologists have good reasons to oppose my theory, since it pulls the rug out from under their inflationary hypothesis. However, the theory exposes two pieces that fit the big puzzle of theoretical physics so naturally that they hardly can be swept back under the rug. These long overlooked pieces of physics say that (1) space obeys the law of conservation of momentum and (2) the physical world is ruled both locally and globally by the law of conservation of energy. The two laws of conservation have proved their solidity in every field of physics where it has been possible to test them. So, why shouldn't they be put to the test in cosmology, too?'
['The laws of conservation of energy and momentum are discussed on page 66 in 'Paper.pdf.' They impose constraints on physics without which nothing in the physical world would be calculable'”no event ever predicted. If these laws do not apply to cosmology, the evolution of the universe is unpredictable.']
'Any student taking a look at Appendix A.1 of my paper will be fascinated by the simplicity of the pressureless momentum equation (written out in full on page 58) and surprised by how easy it is to derive. After that, the student will want to check the rest of my calculations, and will repeatedly be surprised by the simplicity of both the logic and mathematics involved.'
'If I were a young physics student today, I would first check the easy parts myself. Then I would consider asking an applied mathematician to verify the computation of B = 0.666 001 731 498 (Appendix B) and a specialist in weak interactions to check the Higgs contribution to the lepton masses (Appendix C). However, after thinking about it for a moment, I would instead decide to tentatively assume that the results are correct and concentrate my efforts on calculating the lifetime of the spinlessmuon pair (i.e., pair of oppositely charged spin0 bosons) of phase 2.'
['Before it was understood that pions are composed of quarks, there certainly must have been attempts to calculate the lifetime of charged pion pairs, assuming the pions to be elementary bosons. The same scalarQED calculation should apply to the spinlesslepton pairs of phases 1 and 2. Consequently, instead of attempting an actual calculation, I would do a literature search.']
'The lifetime of a pair of oppositely charged spinless bosons of mass 2m_{e} defines the natural time unit t_{c} (see prediction 14 in 'Predictions.pdf'). Its precise value (which on pages 41 and 55 in the paper is estimated to be about 10^{19} s) is needed in a detailed study of the role of weak interactions in the creation of the first proton pair (see 'Simulation.for'). This study would be my next project, hopefully yielding precise theoretical values for the Fermi constant G_{F} (see prediction 18 in 'Predictions.pdf') and the masses of the neutral weak Z boson, (prediction 19), the charged weak W boson (prediction 25), and the neutrino.'
Page eight concludes Part 2 of a threepart interview about the xSM theory.

The interview concludes with the following question.
William: Am I interpreting you correctly if I say that you recommend readers of iTWire to inform physics students they know about what might be a unique opportunity of becoming forerunners in a new theory?
Stig: 'Yes.'
For additional information on the theory of Predictive Cosmology, please go to www.physicsideas.com, which has links to discussions about:
'¢ the standard model (SM) in physics (StandardModel.pdf),
'¢ an easytoread introduction ("they solve the mystery") (Fairytale.pdf),
'¢ a discussion of the primordial particle ("Dirac's new equation") (Dparticle.pdf),
'¢ a simulation program written in FORTRAN (Simulation.for),
'¢ a listing of 'predictions' made by the extended SM (Predictions.pdf),
'¢ a calculation of neutrino and Higgs masses (Higgs.pdf), and, finally,
'¢ the paper itself (Paper.pdf).
For the third interview, please go to the March 3, 2010 iTWire article 'Q&A Interview, Part 3: Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited'
Please note: For people interested in discussing Stig's ideas in more detail, please email William Atkins at william.atkins 'at' itwire.com and he will relay the information to Mr. Sundman.
*****
Original article:
August 10, 2009 iTWire.com article 'Predictive Cosmology: Creation's secret revealed in muonelectron mass ratio = 206.768 283' (or, http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26822/1066/)
First interview:
December 21, 2009 iTWire.com article 'Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited' (or, http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30199/1066/)
Second interview:
January 9, 2010 iTWire article 'Q&A Interview, Part 2: Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited' (or, http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30398/1066/)
Third interview:
March 3, 2010 iTWire article 'Q&A Interview, Part 3: Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited' (http://www.itwire.com/sciencenews/energy/37280xsm3)