Home Science Energy Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited


JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 1543
A European physicist states that an elementary-particle model, called the extended Standard Model, reveals how the universe was initially created, as well as its subsequent expansion into its present form.

This is part one of a three-part interview with the author of a cosmological theory called extended Standard Model, or xSM.

European amateur theoretical physicist Stig Sundman states that a simple particle 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.

Mr. Sundman earned a Masters of Science degree through the Department of Engineering Physics at Helsinki University of Technology. There, Stig became interested in elementary particle physics, with his 1966 thesis titled 'Weak interaction and the hypothesis about a conserved vector current.'

The August 10, 2009 iTWire.com article 'Predictive Cosmology: Creation's secret revealed in muon-electron mass ratio = 206.768 283' went into detail about the three forces of nature that govern the microscopic world of elementary particles: electromagnetic, strong, and weak.

Stig Sundman claims that his theory explains both the cause and the purpose of these forces and presents as evidence a precisely computed theoretical value of the muon-electron mass ratio '” a ratio that has been generally regarded as theoretically incalculable.

Based on his papers and the iTWire article, Stig answers a series of questions about his theory as posed to him by iTWire science writer William Atkins. Some highlights of this first-of-three-part interview are:

'¢    A description of the initial stages of the universe.
'¢    The far-reaching 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.

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 1 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.

The interview begins with the following questions.

How can you know that your theory is correct?

Stig: 'We can never say that a theory in physics is correct. What we can say is that one theory or model explains the world better than another, and therefore is superior to the other theory or model. For instance, Einstein's model for how gravity works (general relativity) is superior to Newton's corresponding model. (Still, none of them are able to identify the cause of gravity.)'

'What I know is that my model for an expanding universe is better than presently favored inflationary models. It is superior to them because it explains many things that are inexplicable in other models. For instance, it explains the purpose of the four forces (electromagnetic, strong, and weak, along with gravity); the reason for the existence of three particle generations; and the origin of the dominance of matter over antimatter. And, what is more important, it leads to many new, more-or-less readily testable predictions.'

William: Have you summarized these explanations and predictions anywhere?

Stig: 'On the website 'physicsideas.com' I have added a separate article ('Predictions.pdf') listing 25 explanations, or 'predictions,' produced by the new theory.'

William: Why did you choose the term 'extended SM' as the name of your theory?

Stig: 'As I see it, I have discovered a rather self-evident (but for curious reasons previously overlooked) piece of physics that complements the purely dynamic standard model (SM) of elementary particle physics by adding a static component to it. The result is a kind of supplemented, complemented, or extended SM. Until somebody finds a better name, I think I prefer 'extended SM' or xSM. Also, I use 'extended SM' in a discussion about the different meanings of the term 'standard model' in cosmology and elementary particle physics (see the link "standard model (SM)" (StandardModel.pdf) in http://www.physicsideas.com).'

William: You make detailed predictions where others have failed. Can you briefly describe the basis for this accomplishment?'

Stig: 'The physical world is governed by conservation laws. Foremost among them are the law of conservation of mass and energy and the law of conservation of linear and angular momentum. It is only because those two laws can be expressed in mathematical form that physical processes are calculable and the outcome of scientific experiments theoretically predictable.'

'What I have discovered is simply that these conservation laws govern two areas of physics previously thought to lie outside of their jurisdiction.'

'First, I discovered that space abides by the law of conservation of momentum (an idea that many others have entertained over the centuries) and that this fact, in turn, implies that the expansion of the universe can be unambiguously calculated and many properties of elementary particles explained.'

'Second, after many years of persistent attempts to simulate the early evolution of the universe on a computer, I realized that the law of conservation of energy plays a double role in particle physics, on which it imposes constraints that determine the evolution of the universe from its birth until today.'

Page three continues Part 1 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following questions.

William: Can you briefly summarize how the universe we observe today first comes into existence according to your theory?

Stig: 'A single primordial massive particle appears. It is highly symmetric, but unstable, and is succeeded by a second, a third, and, finally, a fourth '” the present '” generation of successively less-symmetric elementary particles. The particles form a cold, matter-antimatter symmetric universe. Then, in what might be characterized as the ultimate nuclear explosion (a true 'big bang'), the antiproton decays to an electron, which means that the universe becomes dominated by matter (proton plus antiproton transforming into proton plus electron) that is heated to a trillion degrees Kelvin.'

William: When does the primordial particle appear? And what was there before?

Stig: 'It pops up at the beginning of time. And in physics there is no 'before' the beginning of time.'

William: You say that the primordial particle was described by Paul Dirac back in 1971. Why wasn't the significance of its role immediately understood?

Stig: 'It didn't fit into the generally accepted theory of an initially hot and dense universe where all elementary particles were present from the beginning. Also, by 1971, the earlier entertained idea that space might be regarded as a fluid-like medium had been abandoned by most theoretical physicists.'

William: Why was this idea abandoned?

Stig: 'It appears that the pressureless form of the momentum equation, which is crucial for understanding the nature of space, wasn't generally known at the time.'

William: Why is this equation crucial?

Stig: 'For two reasons. The first is that in a pressureless fluid there are no reference points (no 'molecules') which may be used to define position in the fluid. It means that space may be thought of as forming a kind of 'pointless fluid' in which position, direction, and distance are undefinable. And this undefinability, in turn, means that all mystery disappears from quantum physics. For instance, the 'spooky action at a distance' is a logical necessity in such a space.'

William: And what is the second reason that the pressureless form (as you call it) of the momentum equation is so crucial for our understanding of space?

Stig: 'The pressureless momentum equation has a solution that unifies charge, spin, and the expansion of space. It demonstrates that the expansion of the universe is a property of space that is just as fundamental as spin and electric charge. Also, it shows that gravity is a direct consequence of the unperturbable expansion (and therefore cannot 'balance' the expansion or affect the expansion rate in any way).'

Page four continues Part 1 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following questions.

William: Is your model, i.e., the extended Standard Model, really as simple as you've indicated?

Stig: 'In comparison with proposed 'multiverse' models of the world, the new model is extraordinarily simple. It is difficult to imagine that there could exist a simpler '” while still realistic '” model for our actual, very complex universe.'

'Also, its mathematics is simple. The derivation of the pressureless momentum equation only requires elementary knowledge of analysis '” you need to know what a derivative is. The actual computation of the constant B requires basic knowledge of vector analysis. The rest is application of standard SM theory and as simple as such applications can possibly be.'

'Thus, the summation (in Section 8 of 'Paper.pdf') of Feynman diagrams in scalar QED, can hardly be simpler without becoming trivial. And the calculation (in Appendix D of the Paper) of the Higgs contribution to the lepton masses is astonishingly simple (considering that calculations in weak interactions are not exactly reputed for their simplicity).'

'Maybe a record in simplicity is set by the calculation '” in essence E2/E1 = 2(mp - mÏ€)/4(mÏ€ - me) = 2.872 '” in Appendix E.8 (page 39), which reveals the secrets of the weak force and leads to precise predictions for the Higgs and neutrino masses.'

'Mathematically, the computer simulation of the first three phases of the universe can hardly be simpler. In phase 3, a second-order equation for energy balance is solved, but in the first two phases, only first-order energy-balance equations appear. My failed attempt to compute α-1, which is listed on pages 64-65 in 'Paper.pdf', demonstrates the simplicity of the computer simulation of the first two phases, the actual calculation being performed in a 14 statement program loop.'

William: You claim that your model successfully does away with a number of problems that have plagued physics. For instance, it explains what gravity is, why it exists, why it is so weak, and why there is no fine-tuning problem. Also, the 'antimatter mystery' (why the big bang did not create matter and antimatter in equal amounts, which should have led the universe to disappear in a 'big puff' almost as soon as it began) isn't mysterious at all in your theory. Still, in spite of this success, your theory hasn't met with overwhelming enthusiasm. Why is that so?

Stig: 'The answer may be compressed into one word: Conservatism.'

'People want to preserve what is established, and theoretical physicists are no exception. A comparison between the old and the new theories makes it clear that this is a likely explanation:'

'In the old theory, a full-fledged universe suddenly appears, complete with at a minimum 23 different particles which, already at the instant of the universe's birth, are engaged in violent interactions with each other (that is, have an immensely high temperature).'

'In the new theory, the universe pops up from literally nothing in the form of a single
'” and by necessity '” noninteracting massive particle. By tracking the evolution of this primordial (and unstable) "Dirac particle" (see"Dparticle.pdf) (described by Paul Dirac in 1971) into the particles we know today, the cause of these particles and the purpose of the forces are explained. The reason for the dominance of matter over antimatter is revealed and the relative masses of all particles are in principle calculable.'

'Nothing of this is even conceivable in the old theory which, according to some of its supporters, says that the universe has gotten its constants of nature, and even the physical laws that govern it, by chance.'

'So, let's make a thought experiment and rhetorically ask: Suppose that the latter theory (that is, xSM) had been proposed 50 years ago and since then developed into perfection. Would the proposal of the former theory be greeted with enthusiasm today?'

William: You mention conservatism and the attachment to conventional theories in science; but have you attempted to discuss your theory with established physicists, especially in the fields of cosmology or particle physics?

Stig: 'Established physicists are unwilling to comment (positively or negatively) on a new theory, which they believe challenges their own favored theories, and which they haven't time to thoroughly acquaint themselves with. Therefore, instead of trying to extract opinions on my paper from physicists reluctant to discuss it, I have via middlepersons employed anonymous professional physicists to read and comment on the paper. Thus, between the years 2002 and 2007, I obtained nine assessments mediated by four middlepersons. In addition, I have over the years had helpful discussions with many science writers, several of them well-versed in cosmology and particle physics.'

'As a result of this process, I am confident that my calculations are correct and that the theory as a whole is sound.'

Page five continues Part 1 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.

The interview continues with the following questions.

William: Could you dwell a bit more on how your theory resolves the matter/anti-matter conundrum facing the Standard Model? Also, regarding your previous comments regarding the reluctance of many to explore new ideas in theoretical physics, wouldn't a theory like xSM, which addresses such intractable problems as the dominance of matter over anti-matter, be welcomed by physicists?

Stig: 'As a matter of fact, the model universe initially contains equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and the infant universe indeed attempts a few self-annihilating 'puffs'. However, the attempts fail because the result '” an expanding universe without matter '” is forbidden by the law of conservation of energy, which repeatedly forces radiation to rematerialize, each time causing the creation of more complex (and less symmetric) particles than the preceding extinct ones. Finally, the law prevents further attempts at self-extinction of the material universe by forcing the antiproton to decay '” thereby creating stable matter (proton plus electron) out of unstable proton-antiproton matter. The antiproton decay gives the previously cold matter a very high temperature by releasing an energy equivalent to 10 trillion Kelvin (1013K, see 'Paper.pdf,' pp. 54, 60) in a kind of 'nuclear explosion' or 'big bang' that does not affect the ongoing, unperturbable expansion of the universe in any way.'

'I believe it is the simplicity of this new picture of the big bang that explains the lack of enthusiasm for my model. A universe born as a single Dirac particle has no initial temperature (or in other words, that original single particle has no kinetic energy) and need not undergo any 'inflationary phase.' This fact suggests that much of today's research in cosmology is misdirected. Therefore, if the new ideas were readily accepted, it would be an unwelcome blow to many of today's research projects in cosmology, resulting in a redirection of much of their funding to new areas of research.'

'On the other hand, 'pure' particle physicists have every reason to study my theory because of its many new predictions, which should stimulate renewed interest in existing areas of research (such as QED, strong interaction, weak interaction, and superstring theory).'

'In this latter case, I believe that the general lack of enthusiasm is due to the fact that a cursory glance at my paper easily gives readers the impression that the model I introduce pretends to be a kind of theory of everything (TOE) that rivals previously proposed TOEs, when in reality it only is a very restricted and very simple complement to SM.'

William: You mentioned earlier in this interview that your model is founded on what you call the 'pressureless momentum equation,' which you assume describes an f dimensional (f = 1, 2, 3) flow of space, and which you take to represent a snapshot of a newborn particle at the exact moment of its initial appearance. Now, in the derivation of this equation, you refer to actual (although ideal) physical fluids consisting of molecules. This suggests the question: Is it possible that the equation might be applied, not only to (unobservable) space, but to some real-world applications as well?

Stig: 'As far as I understand, it might be possible. The pressureless hydrodynamic equation contains no reference to molecules or temperature. Therefore, low-temperature hydrodynamics is an area of physics that naturally comes to mind. Upon addition of a term representing external forces (such as gravity), maybe the equation could be used to describe some property of superfluids (so-called Bose-Einstein condensates formed by liquid helium near absolute zero or by the electrons in a superconductor) in which the 'molecules' (that is, atoms or electrons) lose their individuality.'

'Note that the general form of the pressureless and temperatureless momentum equation is given in Eq. (G.3) on page 58 of 'Paper.pdf' and that its derivation (in Appendix A.1 on page 29) only requires elementary knowledge of analysis provided one first substitutes d/dx for the gradient symbol of vector analysis.'

Page six concludes Part 1 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.

The interview concludes with the following questions.

William: In the introduction to this interview there was a reference to the muon-to-electron mass ratio. That ratio is an important prediction of xSM theory. Also earlier in this interview you stated that the website 'physicsideas.com' contains many more 'explanations' and 'predictions' resulting from that new theory. Would you mind recounting more of the predictions made by xSM?

Stig: 'Not at all. There are many predictions that result from xSM. Allow me to cite a number of them (although this is not an exhaustive list)."

"Unlike the Standard Model '” which currently forms the most generally-accepted theory encompassing particle physics '” the extended Standard Model:

'¢ Explains why there exist two 'heavy electrons,' the tauon (t±) and muon (μ±);
'¢ Suggests that all particle masses are theoretically calculable (in units of me, say);
'¢ Predicts (as you noted in your question) a precise value for the muon/electron mass ratio, that is, mμ/me = 206.768 283 185(78);
'¢ Predicts precise values for the Higgs mass;
'¢ Predicts precise values for the neutrino masses;
'¢ Explains the purpose of the electromagnetic force;

'¢ Suggests that
α (or the strength of the electromagnetic force) is calculable;
'¢ Explains the purpose of the strong force;
'¢ Explains the purpose of the weak force;
'¢ Shows that GF (or the strength of the weak force) is theoretically predictable;
'¢ Explains the purpose of the Higgs boson;
'¢ Explains the purpose of the Z boson;

'¢ Shows that CP violation is an inevitable property of weak interaction;
'¢ Suggests that the extent of CP violation in kaon decay is predictable;
'¢ Predicts the existence of four Higgs bosons;
'¢ Explains the purpose of the neutrinos; and
'¢ Explains the purpose of the W boson.

William: In concluding this first part of the interview, I would like to refer back to your website 'physicsideas.com', where interested readers can find more in-depth discussions of various aspects of your theory. I've noticed that by far your longest article on that site is 'Paper.pdf', which is quite long, coming in at 85 pages including Contents, References, and Index. Couldn't it be made briefer?

Stig: 'Yes, it could be slimmed down to a fraction of its present size. However, I am not the right person to do this. In its present form, it tells how the theory developed historically and even includes some discussions that are based on premises that I later found to be wrong, such as my original assumption that the particle mass (m in the equation E = mc2 for a particle's rest energy E), and not the velocity of light (c), varies in the global picture. It almost certainly contains (hopefully not very severe) errors to which I myself am blind. Also, it contains some speculative discussions that I wouldn't subscribe to today, as well as an appendix (Appendix I) that I 'intended to be a temporary appendix.' But since I am unable to judge on their value, I prefer to leave the discussions and the appendix there for others to criticize.'

'Regarding my website, I would encourage people who would like to learn more about the extended Standard Model to go to 'physicsideas.com' where they will find a variety of papers concerning various aspects of the theory. Some of the papers are fairly short (only a few pages long), while others are much longer, going into greater depth.'

To read the second of three question-and-answer interviews with the author of this Predictive Cosmology theory, please go to the January 9, 2010 iTWire article "Q&A Interview, Part 2: 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 muon-electron 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/science-news/energy/37280-xsm3)


Australia is a cyber espionage hot spot.

As we automate, script and move to the cloud, more and more businesses are reliant on infrastructure that has the high potential to be exposed to risk.

It only takes one awry email to expose an accounts’ payable process, and for cyber attackers to cost a business thousands of dollars.

In the free white paper ‘6 Steps to Improve your Business Cyber Security’ you’ll learn some simple steps you should be taking to prevent devastating and malicious cyber attacks from destroying your business.

Cyber security can no longer be ignored, in this white paper you’ll learn:

· How does business security get breached?
· What can it cost to get it wrong?
· 6 actionable tips



Ransomware attacks on businesses and institutions are now the most common type of malware breach, accounting for 39% of all IT security incidents, and they are still growing.

Criminal ransomware revenues are projected to reach $11.5B by 2019.

With a few simple policies and procedures, plus some cutting-edge endpoint countermeasures, you can effectively protect your business from the ransomware menace.



Popular News




Sponsored News