Home Science Energy Q&A Interview, Part 3: Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited
×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 1543

A European physicist states that a new single-particle model reveals how the universe was initially created, as well as its subsequent expansion into its present form. This is the final installment in a three-part interview with the author of the cosmological theory he calls the extended Standard Model, or xSM.



The author, amateur theoretical physicist Stig Sundman, states that an elementary-particle model, which he has dubbed the 'extended Standard Model' (xSM for short), can explain why and how our present universe came to be and how it evolved over its billions of years of existence.

The 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/) went into detail about the three forces of nature that govern the microscopic world of elementary particles: electromagnetic, strong, and weak.

Stig 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 last-of-three-part interview are:

'¢    Examination of several precise, quantitative predictions derived from the xSM theory;
'¢    Implications of experiments by which the theory's predicted 'flyweight' Higgs boson might be detected and its mass precisely determined;
'¢    Instructions where to look for the latest discussions about weak interactions as described by xSM;
'¢    Discussions concerning neutrino oscillations;
'¢    Comparison of the conventional 'hot' Higgs mechanism versus the 'cold' neutrino-Higgs mechanism of xSM;
'¢    Explanation as to what a null result from CERN would mean for various particle models constructed without the need for a Higgs-type boson, as well as what a null result means to xSM;
'¢    Evaluation of importance to xSM of the 'principle of maximum simplicity'; and finally
'¢    Discussion of the origin, and meaning, of mass within the framework of xSM.

To read the previous two question-and-answer interviews, please go to the iTWire articles:

'¢    'Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited' (or, http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30199/1066/) '” December 21, 2009.

'¢    'Q&A Interview, Part 2: Predictive Cosmology and Standard Model revisited' (or, http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30398/1066/) '” January 9, 2010.

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




The interview begins with the following questions.

William: I want to thank you for taking the time to discuss your xSM theory in this three-part interview format. In the first installment of the interview we explored the overarching concepts of xSM, including a description of the initial stages of the universe, the essential role played by the energy and momentum conservation laws, and the fundamental importance of the so-called 'pressureless momentum equation'. In the second part of the interview, gravitation was explored and calculation of the fine structure constant alpha ("α") was discussed.

Now, in this final segment of the interview, I would like to focus especially on the role that the Higgs boson plays in xSM. Most intriguing are your ideas for detecting 'flyweight' Higgs particles in a variety of novel experiments. As the only particle of the Standard Model not yet detected, the Higgs has gained public attention over the past several years as the elusive, so-called 'God particle'.

We should also discuss how xSM deals with neutrinos, not least because over the past couple of decades so much new information has been discovered about them. This in spite of the fact that for a long period of time neutrinos proved extremely difficult to detect and measure because they experience only the weak force and (the exceedingly small) gravitational force.

With your permission, I would like to discuss these topics, as well as related ones: the weak interaction, neutrino oscillations, and the Higgs boson and its potential detection, and all within the context of xSM.

Stig: 'I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss how those various particles and the weak interaction arise within xSM. I am also eager to discuss the possibilities of detecting and weighing the 'lightweight' Higgs bosons predicted by xSM using existing research facilities.'


William: Before diving into questions regarding the properties of neutrinos and the Higgs boson, I first want to call attention to the new insights you have gained about the weak interactions during the course of these interviews for iTWire. Are you summarizing these new insights anywhere?

Stig
: 'I am working on a revised version of my article on 'Neutrino and Higgs masses' (Higgs.pdf). There, I discuss various properties of neutrinos and Higgs bosons that I wasn't aware of when we began preparing this interview. I'm adding nine pages (7 to 15) dealing with the 'cold Higgs-neutrino mechanism' and related questions. It now appears to me that all main pieces of the weak-interaction puzzle have found their proper place, even if much of the 'cement' between the pieces is still missing'”that is, many theoretical leptoweak and hadroweak calculations remain to be performed.'

Page three continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: The topic of neutrino oscillations isn't addressed in your paper. The standard model (SM) can provide no explanation for this phenomenon. In fact, SM doesn't even suggest that neutrinos should have mass. Can the 'extended Standard Model' (xSM) shed light on this mystery?

Stig:
'Thanks for drawing my attention to the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations! Your question makes me realize that xSM indeed predicts the occurrence of neutrino mass mixing, which is generally thought to cause the observed oscillations. The theoretical calculation of the muon-electron mass ratio provides information about the cause of neutrino mass mixing:'

'On the one hand, the mass-ratio calculation implies that the nascent neutrinos emitted by the quarks should acquire 0.128 Higgs masses (see page 39 in 'Paper.pdf'); that is, the neutrinos are born with masses of 65 keV/c2, 13.6 eV/c2, and 0.00154 meV/c2, respectively. (Remember that this original neutrino emission is a unique, 'unphysical' event forced to take place by the law of global conservation of energy.)'

'On the other hand, the result of the mass-ratio calculation shows that the neutrinos received by the leptons have masses of 65 keV/c2, 38.5 eV/c2, and 0.013 meV/c2, respectively.'

'These two results are reconcilable only if the neutrinos that are actually received by the leptons are mixtures of the emitted, 'pure' neutrinos.'

'The neutrinos that today are emitted by leptons should be similar mixtures of pure-mass neutrinos.'



William: How do these results match the actually observed neutrino oscillations?

Stig: 'To answer this question, more detailed knowledge about neutrino mixing is needed. Among questions awaiting answer from electroweak theory are: In what proportions do the components of pure muon and pure tauon neutrinos appear in neutrinos emitted by electrons? What kind of mixing occurs among neutrinos emitted pair-wise by quarks via the intermediate Z boson? Are the mixing ratios fixed or random?'

Page four continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: According to your paper, xSM predicts four distinct Higgs bosons, all of them lighter than the electron. How is it possible that these particles, of which two are expected to bear electric charge, have gone undetected?

Stig: 'It isn't possible! The charged particles should have turned up in various experiments long ago. Since they haven't been seen, the conclusion must be that'”contrary to what I state in the paper'”only one kind of Higgs boson exists.'

'Still, the information contained in the muon-electron mass ratio cannot be misinterpreted: First, the Higgs boson is employed as mass carrier when two pion pairs are formed from the last two electron pairs. An instant later, three more spinless bosons'”each carrying the same mass as the original Higgs'”are employed in building the proton-antiproton pair from the last pion pair. Consequently, the question is: What happened to the three 'Higgs triplets' once they had accomplished their mission?

'It turns out that there is no need to resort to exotic new physics for finding the answer. The explanation lies much nearer at hand'”in the standard model itself. Thus, page 271 in Appendix E of Martinus Veltman's book Diagrammatica: The Path to Feynman Diagrams (1994) provides the answer. The Higgs triplets today appear in the form of Higgs ghosts (φ0, φ+, and φ−). This means that at a very early stage of the universe, four unique kinds of spinless bosons existed momentarily; but today only the original Higgs boson exists as a physical particle, while the Higgs triplets have reappeared as unreal 'ghost' particles that do not affect physical processes. See my separate article on 'Neutrino and Higgs masses' (Higgs.pdf), in which I'm now adding a section discussing Higgs ghosts (page 7).'


William: So, what are these Higgs ghosts? The Higgs boson has recently received much publicity, but I cannot remember reading about 'Higgs ghosts.'

Stig: 'Gerardus 't Hooft and Veltman turned the model for weak interactions into a logically consistent and mathematically tractable theory'”a work that rendered them the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics for 'elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions in physics.''

'In appendix E of Diagrammatica, Veltman lists 92 Feynman-graph vertices. The listing contains nine vertices describing lepton couplings, among them one with a Higgs boson and three with Higgs ghosts.'


'On page 249 in his book, Veltman notes:

'We assume the simplest Higgs sector. The gauge chosen is the Feynman-'t Hooft gauge.'


Then, he goes on to explain:


'There are ghost fields, Higgs ghosts and Faddeev-Popov ghosts. The ghost fields must be included for internal lines, but they should not occur as external lines. They do not correspond to physical particles, but they occur in the diagrams to correct violations of unitarity that would otherwise arise due to the form of the vector boson propagators chosen here. The proof of that fact is really the central part of gauge field theory.'


This means that the Higgs ghosts are unphysical 'particles' that only play an algebraic role in electroweak calculations. In other words, their impact on physical processes is zero. Consequently, the historical role assigned to the phi bosons is very limited: they appear momentarily, suck mass from virtual leptons, deposit it at the quarks, and disappear. The spin-0 φ
bosons (which should not be confused with the composite spin-1 φ meson) may be looked upon as a kind of stillborn triplets delivered by the leptons. The only directly observable physical effect caused by the brief appearance of these 'Higgs triplets' is a negative correction to the tauon-muon and muon-electron mass ratios.'

'If you haven't heard about Higgs ghosts, you are in good company, since I guess that few physicists are aware of them. The reason for this ignorance is that ghost particles are not needed in practical calculations. This is explained, for instance, by P.D.B. Collins, A.D. Martin, and E.J. Squires on page 47 in their book on Particle Physics and Cosmology (which is Ref. [20] in my paper):

'The gauge boson propagators are written for the Feynman gauge. In a non-Abelian theory, additional unphysical scalar ghost particles that correspond to the longitudinal polarization states of the virtual gauge bosons must also be included in internal loops in this gauge, but they can be avoided by working instead in the axial gauge, so we do not include them here.'"


Page five continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: Please elaborate on what happens at what you call 'the hadroweak end of the transport line.' How are the Higgs boson and Higgs triplets (which today only appear in the form of Higgs ghosts) received by the quarks and how are the neutrinos emitted?

Stig: 'I am now addressing these questions on page 9 in 'Neutrino and Higgs masses' (Higgs.pdf), where I discuss hadroweak Feynman diagrams.'


William: It appears that xSM in a consistent and surprisingly simple way explains the previously so puzzling properties of the weakly interacting particles: the Higgs boson, the briefly appearing phi bosons or Higgs triplets, the neutrino, and the Z and W gauge bosons. Can you summarize the ideas that have led to this new understanding of weak interactions?

Stig: 'In fact, there is but one main idea: Once the expanding universe has come into existence, the global law of conservation of energy forbids total annihilation of the universe's matter. Thus, the law forces a series of events which I now try to summarize on page 13 in Higgs.pdf.'


William: I would like to hear more about what xSM has to say about the Higgs boson. In what way does the new 'Higgs-neutrino' mechanism of xSM differ from the 'conventional' Higgs mechanism?

Stig: 'The conventional Higgs mechanism - which I sometimes refer to as the 'hot' Higgs mechanism - is based on the assumption that the strong and weak forces were created at the same time as the electromagnetic force. In contrast, the proposed Higgs-neutrino mechanism derives from the idea that the strong and weak forces were preceded by the electromagnetic force.'

'Whereas the 'hot' Higgs mechanism explains neither the creation nor the actual purpose of the strong and weak forces, the 'cold' Higgs-neutrino mechanism explains both their purpose and the details of their coming into being.'


William: Can you explain these things in more detail?

Stig: 'According to the hot Higgs mechanism, all particles are born massless in 'the inferno of the hot big bang.' Among these particles are the carriers of the weak force: the weakly interacting neutral (Z0) and charged (W±) spin-1 bosons. When the universe cools, it undergoes a more-or-less accidental process in which the weakly interacting neutral spin-0 Higgs boson appears and all of today's massive elementary particles acquire their masses. The Z and W masses are successfully predicted by the mechanism, but only after the so-called Weinberg angle that specifies their ratio is experimentally determined.'

'However, the hot Higgs mechanism leaves many questions open, such as: What mechanism produces the universe's immense initial heat? Why does the newborn universe contain so many different particles? Why are the masses of particles (other than Z and W) what they are? Especially embarrassing is the theory's failure to answer the questions: Why is there a weakly interacting neutral lepton (the neutrino)? What is the origin of its mass? And what is the precise value of this mass?'

'In contrast to the hot Higgs mechanism, the cold Higgs-neutrino mechanism of xSM answers more questions than it generates. Thus, it explains in detail how, guided by the global law of conservation of energy, the self-annihilating electron-positron pair of an unstable QED universe transforms into a stable proton-electron pair with the aid of a multistep Higgs-Z-phi-neutrino-W mechanism (or 'Higgs-neutrino' mechanism for short) that assists in the building of quarks, pions, and the proton.'

'In the cold Higgs-neutrino mechanism, the Higgs and the neutrino have well-defined purposes: transfer energy from leptons to quarks and back. In a first step, a Higgs boson appears and furnishes the quarks with the energy they need to build two pion-antipion pairs. In the next step, three times that much energy is transferred to the quarks via the appearance of three more spinless bosons. Most of this energy is used by the quarks in converting a pion-antipion pair into a proton-antiproton pair. Via the appearance of the neutrino, the unused energy is brought back to the leptons.'

'In short, the Higgs-neutrino mechanism implies that the Higgs boson and the neutral lepton (or neutrino), as well as the strong and weak forces, do not appear spontaneously, but are forced into being by the global law of conservation of energy, which also exactly determines the masses of both the Higgs and the neutrino.'

Page six continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: So, how can these masses - both Higgs and neutrino - be calculated, and what are they?

Stig: 'The masses are unambiguously defined by the proton-pion and pion-electron mass differences. As a byproduct of the calculation of the muon-electron mass ratio (discussed in your iTWire article of 10 August 2009), one obtains the masses of a neutrino and a Higgs particle emitted by a tauon or muon: 0.065 MeV/c2 or 38.5 eV/c2 for the neutrino mass and 0.505 MeV/c2 or 106 eV/c2 for the Higgs mass. Indirectly, one may tentatively infer the values 0.013 meV/c2 and 0.012 meV/c2 for the neutrino and Higgs, respectively, associated with electrons (see Higgs.pdf).'


William: I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of physicists today believe that the Higgs boson, if it actually exists (and some doubt that it really does exist), possesses a very high mass. In contrast to those views, xSM predicts that while Higgs bosons do indeed exist, they possess very low masses. In the updated Higgs.pdf you predict a rest energy (mc2) of 12.001 × 10-6 eV for a Higgs boson emitted by an electron, which corresponds to the energy of a photon with frequency 2.9018 GHz and wavelength 10.331 cm. Also, you suggest that among every million photons emitted by electrons there might be one Higgs boson. Shouldn't it be a rather straightforward task to experimentally detect these Higgs particles?

Stig: 'To get an understanding of the problems connected with observing the Higgs, let's discuss a simple experiment:'

'Take a glass tube and paint its inner surface black (or cover it with a thin layer of any kind of opaque material barely thick enough not to let any light through). Place an electric bulb in the tube and seal the tube so that no light escapes from it. Wrap around the tube a light-sensitive film and place the assembly in darkness. Wait for a while (from a few minutes to a few days) and then unwrap the film to see if it has noticeably changed in darkness. Blackening of the film might indicate that Higgs bosons were created in the electric bulb, passed through the paint into the tube's glass wall, were absorbed by electrons in the glass, and finally re-emitted in the form of ordinary photons.'

'Let me quickly add that a generous amount of patience may be required to perform such an experiment in order to ensure that any positive results are due to Higgs bosons, and not to some other extraneous source. For instance, a discoloration of the film that could be attributed to the action of Higgs particles might instead be a reaction of the film to long term exposure of heat from the electric bulb. To eliminate such a possibility (i.e., thermal contamination of the film) one could run another experiment identical to the first except that heavy, black paper, or alternatively, a thin metal foil, is placed between the film and glass tube. If thermal effects caused the film's darkening, then such an effect will be seen even with the metal foil or black paper in place.'


William: Do you really think such a simple experiment that anybody can do at home will work?

Stig: 'It depends upon the properties of the Higgs bosons. Suppose that, per one million photons emitted by the hot filament in the bulb, one Higgs boson is emitted. If a substantial portion of the emitted Higgs particles are able to penetrate into the wall of the glass tube, then the experiment should work:  electrons in the glass would absorb Higgs particles, jump to a higher energy shell and emit ordinary light when falling back.'

'Because Higgs particles interact much more weakly with electrons than photons do, most of them should be able to pass through the thin layer of black paint dimensioned to absorb all photons. However, a crucial question is: Are the Higgs bosons able to penetrate the glass bulb surrounding the hot filament in which they are created?'

'Light passing through glass is repeatedly being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the glass (a process that causes the effective speed of light in glass to be less than c, which in turn explains the phenomenon of refraction). Naturally, something similar isn't expected to occur for a Higgs boson, which at its first encounter with an electron most probably would be transformed into a photon.'

'The conclusion is that glass as well as metal or almost any substance is effectively opaque to Higgs bosons; even the air in the glass tube might absorb Higgs bosons.'

'Therefore, for the experiment to have a chance of succeeding, the glass of  the electric bulb should be removed and the tube carefully evacuated before the experiment starts, thereby eliminating two substances that could absorb the Higgs particles, i.e., the gases within both the tube and bulb, as well as the glass forming the electric bulb.'

Page seven continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: What if I do this experiment and find no sign of Higgs bosons. Does it mean that they either do not exist or are much heavier than xSM predicts?

Stig: 'I suggested that the ratio between the numbers of Higgs bosons and photons emitted by an electric bulb is of the order of 1 ppm. If that assumption is correct, it shouldn't be difficult to detect the presence of very light Higgs bosons. However, it is not clear to me in which proportions Higgs particles and photons are produced by the hot filament in an incandescent electric lamp. Lacking a deeper understanding of the process, I reason like this:'

'In addition to its spin angular momentum, the photon possesses an internal orbital angular momentum. (Even though it is an elementary particle, the photon is not point-like, and may orbit itself. See section 14.5 in James Bjorken's and Sidney Drell's classic Relativistic Quantum Fields.) In the case of virtual photons, it is possible for the two angular momenta to cancel out each other with the result that the photon may carry zero angular momentum. However, for freely traveling real photons, possession of zero total angular momentum is not physically possible. This state of affairs is a consequence of the photon (which is a spin-1, so-called vector boson) being massless (massive vector bosons may carry zero total angular momentum).'

'Now, being a spinless, so-called scalar boson, the Higgs particle can only exist in the zero-angular-momentum state in which free photons are forbidden to exist. So consider a photon having zero angular momentum and (of course) no mass: such a photon is forbidden to exist as a free-traveling particle (only a virtual photon could have those properties). Compare that to a lightweight 0.012 meV/c2 Higgs boson of zero angular momentum which is 'nearly massless': then one might guess that, as a free particle, the Higgs boson should be 'nearly forbidden,' that is, very rarely produced.'

'If this guess is correct, the ratio between the probabilities for emission of real Higgs bosons and real photons may well be many magnitudes smaller than the 1 ppm expected to hold for virtual particles.'

'In addition, the ratio may be energy dependent and smaller for visible light (with a frequency of a few hundred terahertz) than for microwaves (with frequency of a few gigahertz).'

'On the other hand, it should be possible to construct devices that, for some given frequency, may emit Higgs bosons but not photons. Similarly, it should be possible to construct materials that, for the same specific frequency, are transparent to Higgs bosons in the same way as glass is transparent to photons of a specific range of frequencies (which would open up the way to a new branch of physics: Higgs optics).'


'To conclude, if a suitable source of radiation is used, the experiment just sketched should reveal the existence of very light Higgs bosons. The filament in an electric lamp may or may not be a suitable source.'


William: If this experiment works (and alternative explanations for the blackening of the film, such as the omnipresent background radioactivity, or some sort of thermal reaction, can be excluded), it would demonstrate the existence of Higgs bosons. However, it would give no hint as to their precise mass. So, how could their mass be measured?'

Stig: 'In principle, determination of the mass of Higgs bosons emitted by electrons is simple'”provided one knows exactly where to look. I imagine that an experiment might go like this: At the end of an evacuated tube (maybe the kilometer-long tube of a linear accelerator), a short pulse of microwave radiation is generated. The frequency of the radiation should lie slightly above the threshold frequency of 2.9018 GHz corresponding to the assumed Higgs mass. If the mass is correctly predicted, photomultipliers at the other end of the tube should detect a strong primary pulse of electromagnetic radiation (photons) followed by a faint secondary pulse due to slower-traveling Higgs bosons.'

'The time difference between the arrivals of the two pulses reveals the speed of the Higgs bosons and thereby their rest mass. When the total energy E and the rest energy mc2 of the particles are known, their velocity may be obtained from the formula E = mc2(1 - v2/c2)-1/2. Since the energy of the Higgs bosons should be the same as the energy of the photons (when both types of particle are emitted by the same source), one may replace the energies appearing in the formula by the corresponding frequencies of the photon (for which holds that energy = Planck's constant × frequency). For example, substitution of 2.9019 GHz for E and 2.9018 GHz for mc2 gives v = 0.0083c for the speed of the predicted Higgs bosons (corresponding to 1 km in 0.40 ms versus 1 km in 0.0033 ms for the photons). Conversely, if a secondary pulse traveling with this speed is observed, it shows that the particles delivering the pulse have a rest energy corresponding to 2.9018 GHz.'

Page eight continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: What about more advanced experiments making use of existing particle accelerators?

Stig: 'On page 12 in Higgs.pdf, I suggest that the presence of Higgs bosons might be observed in positronium decay. However, the effect is probably too feeble to be observable. Still, it suggests the interesting possibility that, by re-examining data that have already been gathered during an experiment, one might find the signature of the 'flyweight' Higgs boson, a signature that has gone unnoticed because no one has been looking for it.'

'Positronium is a kind of atom in which the proton nucleus (p) of the hydrogen atom (pe-) is replaced by a positron (e+). Similarly, so-called 'true muonium' is a μ+μ- atom and 'true tauonium' a Ï„+Ï„- atom. Even if events with Higgs bosons emitted in positronium decay may be too rare to be detectable, similar events might be detectable in the decay of true muonium. This is because the probability for a muon to emit a Higgs boson is mμ/me = 206.77 times higher than for an electron to emit one.'

'I might mention in passing that for the decay of true tauonium, it is hardly possible to detect any Higgs effect because of the tauon's short lifetime (about 3 × 10-13 s, versus about 2 × 10-6 s for the lifetime of the muon).'


William: What about the experiments currently being conducted at Fermilab and CERN intended to confirm (or exclude) the existence of the Higgs? If those state-of-the-art experiments ultimately fail in detecting the expected very heavy Higgs boson, then such a failure would constitute a strong argument in favor of your model, shouldn't it?

Stig: 'Not necessarily. Anticipating a negative outcome, many theorists have already developed models without a Higgs boson. Naturally, they will regard the outcome as a support for their theories. Only direct observation of 'flyweight' Higgs bosons can make them abandon their theories.'


William: Thus far, we have mainly discussed Higgs bosons emitted by leptons. What about Higgs bosons emitted by quarks (page 9 in Higgs.pdf)? Shouldn't it be possible to observe them, somehow?

Stig: 'The d quark is about 16 times, and the u quark about 8 times, more massive than the electron (pp. 2, 13, 68, and 77 in the paper's Ref. [20]). Since the probability for a particle (lepton or quark) to emit a Higgs boson is proportional to the particle's mass (Diagrammatica, pp. 270 and 271), the quark has a correspondingly higher probability than the electron for emitting an electron-type Higgs boson (He). The quarks in the emerging pions originally received Higgs bosons from electrons, muons, and tauons in equal numbers. Therefore, independent of its flavor (d, u, s, c, b, or Ï„), a quark should, in contrast to a lepton of given generation or type (e, μ, or Ï„), be able to emit and absorb Higgs bosons of all types (He, Hμ, and HÏ„). Finally, the fact that pions contain two quarks, and nucleons (protons and neutrons) three quarks, further augments the probability for pions and nucleons to emit Higgs bosons.'

'Now, pions are spinless bosons. Therefore, if it appears that a charged pion emits a single photon without changing its orbital angular momentum, the obvious explanation is that, in reality, it emitted a Higgs boson that transformed into a photon when it hit the photomultiplier that detected it.'

Page nine continues Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview continues with the following questions.

William: Can you give examples of other possible situations in which the Higgs bosons might reveal their existence?

Stig: 'I guess there might be many instances where particle physicists and astrophysicists will detect the signature of the flyweight Higgs boson once they begin to look for it.'

'One effect that I think might be attributable to Higgs bosons is the so-called 'Pioneer anomaly,' which has puzzled physicists for more than a decade. According to the article of John D. Anderson et al., Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 (50 pages in Phys. Rev. D 65, 082004 (2002) or 55 pages in http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064 including Errata dated February 4, 2008 that, incidentally, point wrong in a couple of cases: 57 should be 56 and 20 should be 10), signals with frequencies of about 2.11 GHz and 2.29 GHz (see beginning of section II D in the article) were used to measure the position of the two spacecraft. Since these frequencies lie near the predicted 2.9018 GHz threshold frequency for Higgs production, it is natural to ask if the appearance of Higgs bosons affected the signal speed.'

'Interplanetary space is not empty, but filled with molecules (ignoring for simplicity of reasoning other particle states) which form a thin gas that decreases in density with increasing distance from the sun. This thin gas cloud is transparent to photons, but slightly reduces the signal speed as electrons in the gas molecules absorb and'”after a brief time delay'”re-emit photons in a process similar to when visible light is slowed down in glass or water. Now, a microwave photon of energy below 2.9018 GHz would occasionally be re-emitted as a Higgs boson. However, being 'off mass-shell' (that is, too light to appear as a free real particle able to forward the microwave signal), the Higgs boson would be a short-lived virtual particle confined to the molecule in which it is created. Only after the Higgs has been re-absorbed and again emitted as a massless photon, would the signal continue its journey.'

'In short, the existence of the Higgs boson should mean that sometimes absorption and re-emission of a photon is replaced by absorption of a photon, emission of a virtual Higgs particle, re-absorption of the Higgs, and emission of a photon. This process implies an additional reduction in the speed of the microwave signal. It remains to be investigated if this extra slowing down of the signal is sufficient to explain the Pioneer anomaly. (Because of the thinning out of the interplanetary gas far away from the sun, the slowing-down effect decreases with distance, which means that distant spacecraft that are constantly monitored via 2-GHz microwaves seem to be subject to an anomalous acceleration toward the sun.)'

'In general, one might expect that the existence of virtual flyweight Higgs bosons should cause an anomalous decrease in signal speed for microwaves in the 2.9 GHz region. The effect would depend upon the type and density of the medium through which the signal travels.'


William: If that is so, shouldn't it be easy to observe the Higgs effect by measuring and comparing the velocities of microwaves of two or three different frequencies when they propagate through the earth's atmosphere?

Stig: 'Possibly, but I wouldn't bet on it. To my understanding it might well be that no noticeable slowing down occurs in ordinary gas molecules. Maybe the effect is only possible to observe for photons traveling through plasma (like the thin interplanetary solar plasma containing only a few protons and electrons per cubic centimeter) when Higgs bosons that are slightly off mass-shell jump between protons passing sufficiently close to each other.'


William: So, the Pioneer anomaly might be caused by the slowing down of the radio signal because the massless photons that carry it occasionally transform into massive Higgs bosons that jump with speeds less than c between the particles in the interplanetary plasma. Evidently these jumps may be quite long when the microwave frequency is near the threshold frequency for production of free Higgs particles. But why do you mention Higgs jumps between protons and not between electrons?

Stig: 'Since the proton contains one d quark and two u quarks with a total mass of about 16 + 8 + 8 = 32 times the electron mass, the probabilities for electron-type Higgs exchange between, respectively, two electrons, an electron and a proton, and two protons should relate to each other approximately as 1:30:1000. However, the probability for Higgs exchange between two particles also depends on how near each other the particles are. How close two particles approach each other, in turn, depends on their charge (same or opposite), temperature (or speed v), and mass (or momentum mv). Also, the total time delay experienced by the signal depends on the density of the plasma; that is, on how often photons hit a particle and how long the Higgs bosons jump on average.'

'Note, finally, that not only microwaves, but also UV light and X-rays of frequencies corresponding to the respective masses of the muon-type and tauon-type Higgs boson should experience an anomalous reduction in speed when they travel through plasma and interact with its positively charged nuclei.' 

Page ten concludes Part 3 of a three-part interview about the xSM theory.




The interview concludes with the following questions.

William: I must admit that xSM seems to present a consistent and surprisingly simple picture of the previously so puzzling weak interactions. The brief summary of 'evolution of matter' that you have recently added on page 13 of Higgs.pdf certainly isn't very complicated. Still, there are a number of questions that I think need further clarification. First of all, can you explain why you are so confident that the xSM picture is essentially correct, and that its prediction for the Higgs mass will soon be experimentally confirmed?

Stig: 'I think the picture is good because it is demanded by the principle of maximum simplicity. In fact, Occam's razor forbids particles without physical purpose (implying, for instance, that the Higgs ghosts or phi bosons must have had a purpose).'


William: Why are you so confident that the 'principle of maximum simplicity' is universally applicable to physics?

Stig: 'All our well-established understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it has come via application of the principle. Already the Ptolemaists attempted to use maximally simple concepts in the development of their cosmology (circle, sphere, and the five Platonic solids). The Newtonian gravitational potential U = -Gm/r can hardly be simpler. The fact that Quantum Field Theory (QFT), too, relies on the principle is explained by James Bjorken and Sidney Drell in their book Relativistic Quantum Fields (1965), which is Ref. [1] in my paper. If you look up 'simplicity' in the Index of 'Paper.pdf,' you will find that my theory relies heavily on the principle of maximum simplicity. For instance, without repeatedly and consistently resorting to the principle, the constant B would not be calculable. And without a precisely known value of B, none of the subsequent calculations would be possible. In fact, a dismissal of the principle at any point in the chain of logic would imply that nothing in the physical world is predictable.'


William: Another question that puzzles me concerns the origin of mass. It is generally assumed that particle masses are generated via the so-called Higgs mechanism. However, according to xSM, the purpose of the Higgs boson is not to generate particle masses, but to transfer mass between particles. How then are particle masses generated? In other words, what is the nature of mass? Or '” perhaps more to the point '” what is mass?

Stig: 'Briefly, mass is oscillation, waves, or vibration. In other words, particle masses are of dynamical origin. Thus, the primordial D particle was a kind of relativistic harmonic oscillator with mass deriving from its oscillations (see Dparticle.pdf)."

"The charged leptons (electron, muon, and tauon) have zero 'bare mass' as required by the Johnson-Baker-Willey theory and may be looked upon as a cloud of virtual photons (that is, waves) that generate their charge and mass (see page 7 in the paper (Paper.pdf) and 'finite QED (JBW hypothesis)' in the paper's Index.)'

'Consequently, practically all mass of the charged leptons and part of the masses of all other charged particles should be of electromagnetic origin (deriving from virtual photons).'


'I figure that other massive particles are ring-like structures, or closed strings, with (the non-electromagnetic part of) their energy deriving from the string's vibrations. In particular, I imagine a quark as resembling a signet ring with its charge and electromagnetic mass concentrated in the 'signet' (compare with point 3.19 on page 58 in the paper). This asymmetry of the quark ring (compare with a highly unbalanced wheel or tire) may explain why the quarks are dynamically forbidden to exist alone as free particles and normally appear pairwise (forming pions and other mesons) or in triples (forming protons and other baryons), with the bulk of their so-called constituent quark masses deriving from interaction with companion particles.'

'In analogy with the quarks, the charged W bosons might be comparable to charged rotating rings (the W is a spin-1 particle) or closed strings with their electric charge (and accompanying electromagnetic mass) evenly smeared out along the ring, Similarly, the spin-1 Z boson would resemble a rotating neutral, ring-shaped vibrating string, and the spin-0 Higgs boson a non-rotating closed string.'


William: Since we are discussing the concept of mass, I'm reminded of the experiment you described earlier that could potentially determine the mass of the electron Higgs to a high degree of precision. A precise knowledge of this mass should, in turn, lead to a precise theoretical value for the Fermi constant GF via Eq. (6) on page 8 in Higgs.pdf. But, isn't it possible that the Higgs mass appearing in Eq. (6) is a zeroth-order mass to which correction terms should be added before it can be compared with the actually observed mass? In other words, couldn't it be that the threshold frequency for Higgs production in microwave radiation differs from 2.9018 GHz?

Stig: 'The electron may emit and recapture a virtual photon, which contributes to the electron's mass. For the photon, no corresponding self-mass diagrams are possible and the photon remains massless. Now, being a kind of massive spinless photon, the Higgs boson imitates the photon's interactions with leptons and quarks (see the Feynman vertices shown on pages 7 and 9 in Higgs.pdf). Therefore, within xSM there exists no mechanism via which the Higgs mass could be corrected. If the Higgs mass differs from the mass predicted by xSM, it can only be because of the appearance of new-physics effects falling outside xSM.'

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)

 

All three interviews were conducted with the assistance of Philip Koth, East Peoria, Illinois, U.S.A.

 

 

47 REASONS TO ATTEND YOW! 2018

With 4 keynotes + 33 talks + 10 in-depth workshops from world-class speakers, YOW! is your chance to learn more about the latest software trends, practices and technologies and interact with many of the people who created them.

Speakers this year include Anita Sengupta (Rocket Scientist and Sr. VP Engineering at Hyperloop One), Brendan Gregg (Sr. Performance Architect Netflix), Jessica Kerr (Developer, Speaker, Writer and Lead Engineer at Atomist) and Kent Beck (Author Extreme Programming, Test Driven Development).

YOW! 2018 is a great place to network with the best and brightest software developers in Australia. You’ll be amazed by the great ideas (and perhaps great talent) you’ll take back to the office!

Register now for YOW! Conference

· Sydney 29-30 November
· Brisbane 3-4 December
· Melbourne 6-7 December

Register now for YOW! Workshops

· Sydney 27-28 November
· Melbourne 4-5 December

REGISTER NOW!

LEARN HOW TO REDUCE YOUR RISK OF A CYBER ATTACK

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

DOWNLOAD NOW!

 

Popular News

 

Telecommunications

 

Sponsored News

 

 

 

 

Connect