This is another excerpt from my Book, regarding the discovery of the Higgs boson.
|The day after we met again in the conference room.
“I think is time to start analysing the deep connection between the new logic and the actual state of the art. It is a long path which will bring everybody to understand the errors of the actual science. It will not help to understand the new science but will sign the road for a global knowledge.” Said Lisa C to begin. And she continued: “The first link to analyse is the connection between the use of numbers and the quantum mechanics. One of aims of this analysis is to prove as the quantum numbers of the particles is hiding the true nature of the energy exchanges which give “life” to a particle with specific properties, while providing in return an ephemeral indicator, but of “individualised” nature, like the numerical spin is.
Most of the physicists understand that the “quantum numbers” is the result of the application of the quantum mechanics to the small Universe, it is a well made description of the appearance.”
Daniel intervened: “Lisa, for those of us which are not particle physicists, could you refresh the meaning of “quantum numbers”? I do remember the definition I learned long time ago, but could you put their meaning in perspective?”
“Sure, Dan.” Lisa C said.
“The quantum state of an electron in quantum science is defined with four different numbers.” Said Lisa C, and continued: “The numbers are indicated with the small cap letters n, l, m, s. The number n is defined as the “Principal quantum number” and represents the overall energy of the orbital, l is the azimuthal quantum number and defines the shape of the orbital, m is the magnetic quantum number and represents the numbers of all possible energy levels of the sub-shell, s is the spin quantum number that defines the angular momentum of the particle.
The quantum numbers, in origin, were only the first three, used to solve the Schrödinger wave equation for simple atoms; they globally defines the structure of the atomic orbital and how the particles jump between them. Somebody realised that it wasn’t possible to describe the jumps under the effect of an external magnetic field, so the electron was thought to spin, and therefore posses its own angular vector. Dirac finalised the fourth number with is famous equation which, being invariant for the relativity, introduced the existence of antiparticles.
The spin itself is quantised, and the quantum value is ½, in the sense spin can vary in increments or decrements of ½, and cannot be altered in any known way.
Anyway, the Dirac work didn’t included the possibility of creation and destruction of particles, as required from relativity. Scientists tried to introduce the “quantum field theory”, which we already discussed, by giving up the dear concept of wavefunction; it ended up in what I consider the mess of “quantum electrodynamics”... I have read of an highly skilled technologist, who produces the best semiconductors on Earth, saying that Dirac work, especially the part where he stated the existence of a “sea of electrons”, in which negative-energy eigenstates are unfilled, and behaves like electron holes is only a badly applied patch, to which he as to deal with everyday. The number of experimental parameters and laws he uses to realise his products is exceedingly large, and this indicates that the base theory is very poor.”
I wanted to pose a question to Lisa C. I asked: “Lisa, you know I am not an expert in the sector. What the quantum theory did to the electron, with respect to the original atomic theory? I mean, the electron is still there, but it undergoes so many rules and has so many constraints to match the experimental observations...”
“Tony” answered Lisa C, “you are right. The quantum theory has been built from many different scientists over the years, and it has proved to be a gridlock. The string theories are the best attempts to find an escape route, but we all know in this room they aren’t going to work.
Starting from the simple atomic model, the scientists added layers and layers of complication, to coherently explain the experimental evidences... it happened the same, in the mathematics sector, with the axiomatic theory of the sets, which we already analysed.
What, throughout the times, has remained “constant” in the theory? I’ll tell you. It is the individuality of the particle. Yes, you have orbitals, probability amplitudes, wavefunctions... but they are concept revolving around the existence of a particle. I mean, it would have been much easier from the beginning to refuse the individuality of a particle, as Einstein was oriented to do, and proceed from there. The problem, as we have seen, is the overarching logic reasoning used from the scientists. The quantum numbers are only allowed certain combinations when an electron jumps, the exclusion principle avoids the same numbers in the same orbital, the analysis of the fine structure of the atom shows interactions explainable only with the spin of the particles. At the same, the difference between matter and energy, between fermions and bosons, is an explanation following the spin of the particles.
As I said, it is a gridlock. Many scientists are questioning what is behind the quantum theory but, I’m afraid that no answer can be provided if the concept of individuality is not relieved.
We have set the range of our discussion now... let’s see what happen when we remove the individuality from the quantum numbers. The “combinations” those number cannot be any combination of choice; there are constraints, as I said, regarding the exclusion principle, the allowed orbitals, and so on. Let’s say that the allowed combination defines the “social behaviour” of the particle we observe. Removing the individuality of the particle from the numbers make them senseless? What they may eventually indicate, if there isn’t a particle used for reference?
Think of what could remain of the quantum numbers if there is no particle. The allowed combinations defines the individuality of the particle; I mean, the set of allowed patterns defines the particle AND its behaviour which, due to the fault in the logic of the sets, you cannot process any further: this is the indetermination principle. You recognise the principle differently because you do not want deny the individuality of the particle; in the reality, the indetermination is due to the incompleteness of the logic theory of the orders. The next question to pose is: what is behind the curtain of the indetermination, which we are not allowed to see?
We know that the individualised particle and its behaviour is “created” from the same set of space operators; the behaviour is separated from the individual particle in the moment you define the logical sorting which assigns “properties” to the particle; that is the Cartesian square operation of connecting the properties of the particle to the set containing the “true and false” operators.
Do you remember, I gave you an explanation of the application of the theory of orders using glasses as an example? There you had the possibility to choose from a wide number of property to identify a glass: its shape, its transparency, its function, and so on. The wide number of properties cover up the weaknesses of the logic mechanism. In the case of the particle, the “properties” are the quantum numbers only, and the weaknesses of the logic theory are exposed in full. What is not evident from defining a particle with the quantum numbers? Exactly, the fact that the particle and its behaviour are the same thing. The behaviour of the particle IS the particle. While it may seem a statement of minor importance, it is clashing with the definition of the quantum theory, which is only a description of a system. As matter of fact, the principle of indetermination, either in its classic enunciation or in my enunciation, is hiding the fact that the particle has no individuality; that the quantum numbers are a false attribution; and the only valid portion of the description, which is correlation of the allowed combinations of quantum numbers, IS the particle. Moreover, the principle of indetermination hides the fact that each particle has its own gravity force, which is characterised from a commutative property and therefore can interact only by summing up.
The quantum scientist are still unaware of the fact that the allowed patterns of the quantum numbers are exactly the vibration of the strings, which defines the property of a particle when it is described as a string, and includes the gravity.”
Lisa W was visibly astonished, but she kept her aplomb after this explanation of Lisa C, and asked: “Lisa, I want to ask some more details, about the different properties of bosons and fermions, which are the particles making up the light and the matter, respectively. The main difference between these two particles is in their spin...”
“Lisa, sorry to interrupt you” said Lisa C, and continued: “Lisa, the spin is an axiomatic addiction to the original quantum numbers, and it is there to explain only SOME interactions of the particles... assigning the properties of rotation to something you know it may not exist it is a logical abhorrence, it is a lack of fantasy born from the force of despair, be aware of this.”
“Thank you Lisa” said Lisa W “I know that the particle’s spin is a “patch”. The complete quantum theory is eighty years old and shows heavy inconsistencies, this is why the particle physicists are moving on... but at the moment we don’t have a better formal alternative.
As I was asking you about the difference between the particles which makes up light and matter... the main difference is with their spin: fermions, making up matter, have half-integer spin; while bosons, which make up lights, have integer spin. They observe other rules: the fermions respect the exclusion principle, as an example. Can you elaborate the difference between the two type of particles with the use of noun-less logic, without possibly involving the new theory? I’m asking you this because I would lay down a convincing explanation for my peers...”
“I understand it Lisa” Lisa C answered. “it can be difficult but I will try. To achieve a satisfactory result, there are two things that require a special explanation, which are the true nature of the exclusion principle, and the Higgs boson.
A particle which ingenerate the mass undergoes the Pauli exclusion principle: electrons and protons in the same atom cannot have the same quantum numbers. Into an attempt to translate this requirement into a visible picture, this “clause” of exclusion is explained by saying that two electrons cannot be in the same place at the same time... into the reality of the facts, there are no really “places” inside an atom, so I would disregard this explanation given in visual terms.
By applying our noun-less logic, we know that the matter we “see” is constituted from the correlation of the continuous changes of the quantum numbers. Of course, the vision of physicists is corrupted by the need of individuality, and what they see is the quantum behaviour of the fermion and its “smoothing” via the Fermi-Dirac statistics. In this case, the “masking” is produced from separating the fermion from the laws it obey; in this case, the latter are the selections of possible quantum numbers. On the other hand, bosons doesn’t obey the exclusion principle, and their “materialisation” follows totally different rules, explained with a symmetric wavefunction and the Bose-Einstein statistic.
In terms of abstraction layer, the difference between fermions and bosons is not due to a different percentage of the S, T, E and M components, but from their relative phase. In our abstraction layer there is no distinction between the particle and the laws of physics, being it the intermediate passage between the world with observers, and the space of the operators which is individuality-free. The fermions and the bosons have a different phase vectors, all the rest being equal. When you pump an electron into a semiconductor junction of a light emitting diode, it comes out as photon, which is the same as an electron, but has the T component in phase opposition to it...”
“It is so simple, Lisa?” asked Lisa W.
“Yes, continued Lisa C. This has also a consequence on the gravity produced from the particle. You can design an hypothetical experiment to measure the effect: if you could make appear an electron and a photon at the same time, and have the possibility to measure their force of gravity, you would see that the correspondent force of gravity would appear first for the photon, then for the electron. Measuring the time of half commutation cycle can be challenging, as it is measuring the gravity of a single particle, but... with the use of proper interferential techniques coupled to highly coherent particle beams, maybe I can invent a viable experiment.”
Lisa W intervened: “If that experiment is feasible, it could convince our academic people of the connection between the quantum world and the gravity. It would not automatically support our new theory, and will open a can of worms, for sure. I was looking for a definitive and firm explanation, really.”
“You may want to look into an observation, rather than an experiment, then. I don’t know how this could be beneficial, but if you look into the variation of the scalar composition of a particle, and I mean the quantity of each of the S, T, E, M components instead of their relative phase, you can limit your experiments to some smart astronomical observations.
As an example, neutron stars are said to be composed of neutrons... and these neutrons are the result of the merging of electrons into protons, because of the excess of gravitational force which overcome electronic repulsion. The exclusion principle is the only phenomena, in a neutron star, to guarantee the correct spacing of this structure made of degenerate matter, due to the fact that the neutrons, forced to occupy some specific energy spaces, exerts an increasingly high pressure.
Now, should a successive threshold be exceeded, there is a further collapse, resulting in a black hole.
Here either the quantum theory and the relativity doesn’t work anymore. You can easily provide an explanation of the mechanisms of the degenerate matter and the black hole with the use of the abstraction layer... in my opinion, it can be very convincing since it would explain all the observations and, at the same moment, substantiate all possible hypotheses...”
Michael intervened. “Lisa, in my opinion, there is something missing here...”
“Sure” said Lisa C. “It has to do with the closest link between our new theory and the standard model of particle.
There is a particle that the scientist are looking for, the Higgs boson. While we speak, the news are transmitting that the new particle accelerator has been turned on today. They ionise hydrogen gas, in order to produce two beams of protons, and after having accelerated them in a twenty-seven kilometres with an array of superconductor magnets, they “smash” the beams one against another, with a maximum energy of seven TeV. I heard some more experiments are to be conducted with lead nuclei, to imitate the initial conditions of the Universe after the Big Bang... Back to our particle, the Higgs boson...the hypothesis of a field that provide inertia to subatomic particles was presented from Scottish physicist Peter Higgs in the year 1964, and it has never observed until now. In accordance with this hypothesis, when a subatomic particle change its velocity, it finds a drag force that opposes the change; the phenomena is well known in classical physics as the “law of inertia”.
A field, known as “Higgs filed” would provide inertia, and therefore mass, to the subatomic particles. The particle associated to this field, called the Higgs boson, is hypothesised in the Standard model, but as I said it has never been observed, because the energy to produce it artificially were too high until now.”
Michael said: “Lisa, what happen if they don’t find the boson they are looking for?”
“Good question Michael” answered Lisa. “I don’t want to use our theory for this explanation, not yet; let’s see what would happen by using the actual science.
The Higgs boson gives mass to every particle which has mass because of its non-zero vacuum expectation value. The operator that describe the physical state of the Higgs field has an energy of 246 GeV.
We haven’t discussed yet of the vacuum energy; it is the energy that is contained in the free space even when there is no mass or radiations; it has never been observed, but it has been deduced from various effects and measurements: I want just to mention the virtual particles, the spontaneous emission of photons from materials and how it is modified from resonance, Van der Waals forces, and the difference of energy of the S and P orbitals of the hydrogen atom, which required the use of the quantum electrodynamics theory to be explained.
In accordance with the quantum scientists, the empty space is not empty, but all the interactions happening in the vacuum cancels out, almost entirely. The “almost” shows up as a tiny attraction of metal objects in space due to resonance, which has been verified. The fluctuation of the vacuum is used to explain the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs on the event horizon of a black hole, to explain the emission of energy from it. The total energy of the Universe remains zero as long as particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate within Planck time, which is the time required for the light to travel for one Planck length; if the black hole pulls one particle of the pair before it, the other particle becomes real and its energy is radiated from the black hole, notwithstanding its immense gravity pull.
Back to the vacuum expectation value: I just mentioned the attraction between two metal objects. If they are placed apart a distance of few micrometres, with no electromagnetic field applied, there is a small mechanical force between them. This effect is explained with the fluctuation of the vacuum energy, where the energetic interactions and their internal relationships are both quantised, and is called Casimir effect.
There are inconsistencies in the explanation of the energy of the vacuum, the most relevant one is the value of zero-point energy, or the energy at the null state of a quantum system, doesn’t change with the volume of the Universe; in addition, the relation between the zero point energy and the cosmological constant is yet to be understood.
Well, I now need to refer to our theory.
We know that vacuum energy doesn’t exist in the way it is described from quantum electrodynamics. All the energetic manifestations are commuted to the geometric space, including the space itself. What you measure to be the vacuum energy is the secondary effect of the finite time of the commutation.
The effect of commutation is a rendering in itself; in reality, it is the balance of the space operators that is expressed as energy commutation from the commutative space. There is a necessary time for the commutation as it is measured from the geometric space, after the “expression” of the operators; each of the four components of each particle commutes, not necessarily at the same starting time, as we have seen the phase of the commutation to produce an important difference in the final result. The finite time of the commutation of particles which you want to identify “separately” produces a fluctuation. The fluctuation is born from the fact that you identify some particles and use them as a reference for your measurements. In reality the fluctuation is due to the fact that your reference is changing in continuation, there is no real fluctuation in the phenomena of commutation. The measured Casimir effect, the force between two metallic plates at micrometric distance in the vacuum is the consequence that the particles making up each plate appears to exchange between them, as their close distance makes the time of commutation to produce a phase delay. Casimir effect is not a demonstration of the fluctuation of energy of the vacuum, but an effect of the phenomena of commutation. The entire concept of zero-point energy, including the expectation value of particles like the Higgs boson, are the visible consequences of the commutation. The entire concept of the Higgs field providing inertia to particles is inexact; it is only a depiction of what you see when you imagine separated particles. Inertia is the mass, it is one of the vectors of commutation. The entire modality of translation of the energy from and to the commutative space makes you see a field and the associated particles; smashing two beams of protons at 7 TeV will allow you to observe the Higgs boson?
Keep in mind that at any energy, the commutation of energy is not being influenced; this somewhat translates in the exclusion principle... You can see the Pauli exclusion principle as the phase of M components of fermions in opposition of the E component, while it is the same phase for bosons. What you observe as temporary particles in one commutation cycle time, which is one Planck time, are only transition particles. The idea of Hawking, to explain the escape of energy from a black hole is absolutely genial; it seems he understood the principle of commutation, and explained it with the use of current model physics. This way of explaining physical observation cannot go on forever, and is not for everybody.”
Lisa C intervened: “Lisa, at the moment I haven’t understand if the scientist will observe the Higgs boson in the just completed particle accelerator...”
“Yes, you right. Think what I said about the difference between fermions and bosons in accordance with our model. The Higgs boson is a boson, right? Therefore, its M phase coincides with its E phase, and this is enough to make it behave like light and not undergo the exclusion principle. The problem is the Higgs boson is true for the observer, while the Higgs field is not. Scientists will observe the Higgs particle, but it will take years for them to understand that there is no Higgs field... They will start to rethink all quantum electrodynamics to understand why this, in the best case. If everything goes normal, they will claim that the Higgs field has too high energy to tamper with. In reality, they should only question the logic that make them see the Higgs boson at an energy interaction of 7 TeV.”
Michael intervened: “Lisa” he said very calmly, “I don’t follow you well. Hasn’t any field have an associated particle, which sums up the property of the field?”
Lisa C started to smile, and I was the only one, it seemed, to understand her sense of irony. “Mick” said Lisa C, “What is a field? Don’t’ give me its mathematical definition, just tell me in plain words what is a field, please...” Michael seemed a bit uncertain, when he said: “Lisa, a field of any type, be it electric, magnetic, gravitational, exerts a force on the matter... it is so simple... things are a bit more complicated when we think of the fields described from the quantum electrodynamics, especially when we face the energy of the vacuum, which you explained so well...” “Yes” said Lisa C “that is the problem. Fields are an explanation to the behaviour of the particles and the matter, basically they are a description of the observed interaction, the scientists know this very well. When you rely totally on the existence of a field, and pretend to ignore what is really behind them, is when the trouble starts. You have a particle, of energy or matter is not important, you have the law of physics like the exclusion principle or the law of inertia, a field of given type which influences the particles, and a geometric space which accommodates the “play”. To make everything behave coherently, in this framework, is impossible in presence of the logic errors we have discussed. Our S.T.E.M. model is designed to describe things in their natural state, avoiding inborn logical errors. What is questioned here, with regards to the Higgs field, it the law of inertia.
Everybody is familiar with the concept of inertia; in absence of gravity, mass has no longer any weight, but it keeps its inertia. The concept of mass is interrelated with the concept of inertia like the egg and the chicken.
With the use of Hilbert’s space and the observables, we describe the state of the Higgs field, and as I said before, it has an energy value which is non-zero in the vacuum. If I can tell my non-academic opinion about the accepted description of the vacuum, while remaining polite, I say that this description is an abhorrence... hopefully, it is past history with our new theory.
In accordance with Higgs, everytime a particle accelerate or decelerate, the Higgs field will exchange energy with it, making up the inertia of the particle and, by extension, its mass. In reality, the inertia is the phase difference between the space and time components occurring during the commutation. While the M-E phase angle make a particle act like mass or light, the S-T phase angle provide it with inertia. Do you remember what I told you about the atom weight, that the difference between hydrogen and uranium is only due to the difference of the intensity of T vector, or their time content? Well, the S.T.E.M. model can explain the entirety of physics with great simplicity, without resorting to the use of fields or other modelling entities.
There is to say that the simple explanation of the inertia based on the M-E phase angle is fully compliant with Lorentz transformation. The Higgs field doesn’t exist, and the Higgs boson will be forced to appear simply because the conditions of observation. Once again, the fault is with your reasoning. I wonder what could be the next step your scientist will take, once they will understand that observed the Higgs boson is not consistent with the Higgs field: they will want to build a machine which can interact with the field, but this experiment is beyond the reach of Mankind for all the foreseeable future, since the very high energies which are involved. In front of this impossibility, they may start asking themselves if there is something wrong in their reasoning... Also, consider that the M-E phase angle explanation is true for all fields, including the gravity field. This explanation, coupled with the fact that the force of gravity is produced from the return path of the commutative cycle, should make clear once and forever that the association of a specific particle with a specific field is a speculation, and tells you why they will find the Higgs boson but not the field, or why they have find the gravity field but not the graviton, while there is an electron and an electromagnetic field.”
I felt strange inside myself. From the little knowledge I have of quantum physics, every field has to have a “carrier”, not necessarily a force carrier, but a particle which exerts the action of the field. From what Lisa C was saying, the relationship between a field and the associated particle is not true. That is a big news... like all the other information she provided, I guess. On this new conscience, I found inside myself the courage to pose a question, without fearing for the answer.
I asked her: “Lisa, you are saying that the relationship between a field and the its carrier particle is immaterial? On what the existing science is based upon, then?”
“Tony” said Lisa C, “the relationship between the a field and its particle is the observer. The particle and the field are two purely imaginary entities, we have been talking about the reality of the facts already. I can easily prove you where the mistake is... as you can imagine, the problem exists within the application of the theory of the sets, that makes up the definition of a field and the definition of a particle. When you cross the two logic definitions in terms of logic sets, there are some “void areas” regarding the criteria of appurtenance. In that “shadows” lie the fact that the field-particle relationship is true until there are many different criteria to establish it. As soon you are left with one criteria only, the relationship falls under the “curse” of indetermination. By applying our noun-less logic to the reasoning, we end up that the definition of a field doesn’t automatically imply the existence of a carrier particle, since this depends on the condition of observation. When the scientists will find the Higgs boson, and they will, they will prove that the model is correct. What happen next? There is no drag field to provide mass to the matter. If somebody will be so “clever” to suggest to interact with the Higgs field to proceed in the scientific research, a decade or two may pass before they realise of the logic criss-cross. It is more likely that solid-state technologists will make some experimental discoveries that will point the research in the right direction, rather than particle physicists proving an interaction with the drag field...”
We decided was time for a small break.
There are too many things to learn in such a short time.... The Conference Centre has a bar, and we all walked over there.
In a half hour time we were all back in our room.
Lisa W started to say: “More I reflect on all this explanation, the more I understand that the most important points, the places where everything rotates around, is the new logic and the concept of commutation...”
“You are right, Lisa” answered Lisa C. The new logic has a devastating impact on all our knowledge base, once you start applying it extensively. And the concept of commutation... you can understand it only if you grab the new logic in full. We have been discussing already the concept of commutation, but we will come back on it many more times, I think.
There is one more involvement of the new noun-less logic we can analyse now in order to arrive to a better explanation of the concept of commutation. This involvement is the existence of a series of operators which translates in a single perceivable unity.”
“Like an human being?” I interrupted Lisa C while she was talking.
“Tony” continued Lisa C, “You arrived right at the heart of the problem. The noun-less logic indicates that a standing unity is forcibly a fading unity. In other words, whatever is organised to act as a standalone entity can only do it for a limited length of time.”
I was without breath. Michael was staring at the ceiling, Lisa W had her jaw dropped. Mariah was looking pale, and Daniel put his hand on the forearm of Andrew, while saying “I thought so! But I also thought it to be unlikely...”
In few seconds I had the control over myself again. I said to Lisa C. “Lisa, when I said about the human being, I just throw a comparison in the discussion; I ‘m not so smart to pre-empt you in your knowledge, and even less on the fact that the limited length of life is not an evolutionary requirement, but a mathematical requirement. I’m not so imaginative...”
Lisa W appeared very uncomfortable. Michael stood up and started to walk through the room.
Lisa C continued.
“It is a mathematical requirement, as you said, Tony; it applies not only to human being, but to every organised entity. Conceptually, is simple: it is all about energy. Energy, as we already discussed, is an information flow; when the entity doesn’t participate to the flow, it is no longer the entity that it pretends to be. In a moment, I will go through the mathematical explanation of it; starting from the relations of order and the theory of sets... naturally.
The end of a organised entity... you may think it shows as a fading of its identification: no, it shows as a fading of all energy exchanges relative to it. The longest living particle, like a proton, they don’t lose their identification; they lose their energy exchange capabilities. We will see this in a moment...”
“To continue my involuntary comparison with an human being... the proton grows old, and the same happens to all other particles, including extremely short-lived ones...”
“Yes, you are right, Tony” answered Lisa C.