Can the Discovery of God Particle Save the Standard Model?

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

pikewei450203
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:13 pm

Can the Discovery of God Particle Save the Standard Model?

Postby pikewei450203 » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:00 pm

Can the Discovery of God Particle Really Save the Standard Model Theory?

Mr. Pi, Kewei (China)

The press conference hosted by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on July 4 announced a newly discovered subatomic particle, which could very likely be the Higgs boson that is generally known as “God Particle”. This discovery ecstasizes many physicists who are firm believers of Standard Model Theory, and they consider this moment the true triumph for this Theory. However, is what they believed really true?
With the appearance of a new particle, the question whether it is a “God Particle” depends on whether it is a boson, whether it falls under the mass scale and certain quantum values, and most importantly, whether it can accomplish the function predicted by the Theory. The Standard Model Theory believes that God Particle should bring “mass” to various types of particles in the Theory, but can the newly found particle meets such expectation? If the judgment of Standard Model Theory on issue regarding mass is incorrect, then it will not be possible for any recently discovered particle to become God Particle.
It has been over half a century since the Standard Model Theory was brought up, in which “God Particle” takes up a principal role, and the theorists have been assuming the existence of “God Particle” as the foundation of theories. The writer asserts that before “God Particle” was found, the theory did not make major breakthrough while making assumption of its existence, and now that “God Particle” was discovered, the Theory still will not advance because of it. The predicament of the Standard Model remains, which is its inability to quantitatively explain the problem of “mass spectrum of particles”, which is why the particle has such mass value. If such major defect exists in the Standard Model Theory itself, no matter what sort of new particle is found, the foreseen aim for the theory still can not be achieved.
Standard Model Theory practically did not make any prediction on the mass of particle; most of the mass values of the 62 types of particles involved in the Model are experimental values, and the Theory can not make quantificational explanation as Periodic Table of Elements does in terms of why the experimental values are like these. The “God Particle” is the same case since the predicted value by the theory shall not be over 1TeV (which is several times the value of this experiment); as the value exceeds 1TeV, the Standard Model itself will not exist, and the Theory did not make any similar prediction on the mass of Higgs boson.
It is understandable for Physical Science to be sophisticated and complicated, as a complex system must be supported by profound mathematical model. The problem is, if we are only talking about a theory involving the fundamental structure of quantum and fundamental interaction, does it have to be this complicated? In order to explain a proton, the Standard Model Theory created dozens of particles, including particle that has been accurately incised into fractional electric quantity, but can nature accept such intricate theory articulated by the humankind? We can not help but be reminded of Ptolemaic’s Geocentric Theory before Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory prevailed: in order to elucidate the orbit of planets in the view of human, Geocentric theory designed Epicycle Model, which was quite complicated and poorly explained. Fortunately, it is not the truth, the simple and easily understood Heliocentric Theory presented by Copernicus is.
The writer does not believe that the Standard Model Theory can truly solve the problems of unified structure and unified-field theory; after all, we can not expect too much from the Theory. Nevertheless, to request Standard Model Theory to reasonably explain the “particle” that is self-created and included after the experimental discovery is not too much to ask as a significant symbol for the stable existence of a particle (although the stability is temporary) is the “mass” stability. The main purpose of the Standard Model Theory to present “Higgs field” and “God Particle” concept is to explain the generation of “particle mass”. The Standard Model Theory considers "mass" as its major target, and now that “God Particle” is unveiled (let’s assume that the particle discovered this time is indeed the “God Particle”), the theory must be able to properly articulate what mass is, and why the mass of “God Particle” is a value between 125 and 126 GeV but not any other numerical value.
The research on “mass” spectrum of particle can probably make significant progress on fundamental theories of matter structure and its interaction. Rather than letting nature to incise particle into 1/3 or 2/3 electric quantity by the instruction of human, we can instead consider what kind of “synchronization” factor can naturally stabilize the frequency of particle into certain numerical range (distributed by statistical probability). The high-energy hadron collider provided large quantity of valuable experimental data and created unprecedented conditions for theoretical research. The writer thinks that when discussing how to explain the particle’s mass problem quantitatively, we absolutely can not follow the concept described by “Higgs Field”: “Higgs boson” (i.e. “God Particle”) constructs “Higgs field”, and since “particle” comes across “resistance” while “swimming” in the “Higgs field”, it can not accelerate, and there comes concept of “mass”. How can such concept of mass be deprived from the inner nature of particle? How can “stationary mass” be completely separated from “motion mass”? The writer asserts that one must properly understand what mass is before finding solution to explicate the problem of “mass spectrum of particle”.
The writer proposes “quantum wave hypothesis”, which claims that particle is wave, wave is particle, and particle and field is unified. The vibration frequency of quantum wave is the most basic physical quantity, and the frequency is energy. The energy and mass are relative, and to another perspective, frequency is mass, or mass is frequency (must be divided by the square of the speed of light). The quantum vibration has two forms: Bose-wave and Fermi-wave. With Bose-wave, the wave center moves towards a single direction and the speed of wave is the speed of light; with Fermi-wave, the wave center vibrates and travels back and forth in certain domain, but the speed of wave is also the speed of light. Pure Bose-wave is photons, and pure Fermi-wave is stationary particle of substance; once in motion, it contains component of Bose-wave and Fermi-wave simultaneously. A right triangle can be used to depict quantum frequency (equals to energy, mass), speed and wave density (reciprocal of wave length, which equals to momentum). Why is the mass of particle (i.e. energy, frequency) stable? Because while the length and amplitude of the wave variation and the distance between positive and negative particle are among some numerical value relationship, in which the “resonance” of something like “standing wave”, and the frequency stays in such “simultaneous” state.
Frequency is a basic physical quantity. It can be used to increate a new physical unit system named “unit system of quantum”, which is to replace energy with frequency (cycles/second), kinetic energy with wave density (cycles/meter), force with /m (cycles/second), mass with second/meter2, i.e., (cycles/second) /c2. Electricity is expressed by the number of basic fermion (indicated by “e”) which is distinguished between positive and negative electric charges (i.e. positive and negative electricity). By the unit system, the physical formula only possesses a few physical quantities like second, meter, cycle, and e. The physical formula does not possess the usual energy and mass, neither does Planck’s constant h exist,and then formulas and theorems from kinematics, kinetics, electromagnetism can be easily described, disclosing relationships among physical phenomena connections directly. Quantum unit system is entirely corresponding with international unit system. If quantum unit system is brought up by adopting the quantum wave perspective, it will naturally result in the unified transformation formula of special theory of relativity, result in Klaus von Klitzing constant, and result in permittivity of vacuum of reciprocal divided by twice the speed of light and equals to fine structure constant. These do not happen by accident; they must be a sign that the theory has much credibility.

(Please refer to Frequency is the Basic Physical Quantity wrote by the writer at: http://kbs.cnki.net/forums/10683/ShowForum.aspx)
To understand the mass spectrum issue of the quantum, one must change the rigid perspective on particle, which thinks that it is aggregated by fixed substance, has clear boundaries, and with no interaction. Instead, one should replace with another theory that believes particle is wave, and wave is particle. Quantum Wave Hypothesis provides research basis for unity between corpuscular property and undulatory property of quantum, unity between particle and field, unity between locality and non-locality of quantum, unity between structure form and its interaction of quantum, unity between quantum theory and relativity theory, unity of positive and negative sides of quantum and of electricity, unity of mass and energy, and unity between rest mass and motion mass. The writer asserts that the quantum wave hypothesis is the only breakthrough point to change the stagnant progress on the fundamental structure and its interaction of matter over nearly half of the century.
During the study on mass spectrum of quantum, the valuable viewpoints in the Standard Model Theory should also be taken into consideration. For instance, Symmetry Group Theory obviously regulates the stationary constraint during “frequency resonance”; the usage of Superconductivity Theory (its core mechanism is synchronization) in the Field Theory reminds us to particularly emphasize the “synchronization” issue, and that synchronization is the only solution to stable state. Electro-Weak Unified Theory is the most successful physical fundamental theory in recent years; while the writer does not agree with the point of view that the weak interaction is induced by particles (particle W and particle Z) who transmit interaction, but the nuclear force (including weak nuclear force) is the non-linear electric field force under resonance state in the Quantum Wave Hypothesis (must consider certain neutral quanta, such as neutron, as compound quanta with electrons) proposed by the writer, and that weak current is highly unified. The writer asserts that the essence of weak interaction is “strength”, and “strength” determines its stability, which is the decay property of weakness; for instance, the “strength” of proton determines that its decay property is almost zero.
The writer asserts that the discovery of a new subatomic particle by CERN this time is a major achievement of scientific research, which will raise the energy level of single quantum that mankind could realize to an all new height. This experimental finding is indeed a crucial experiment made in advance because as long as a theory can explain why the mass of new particle is between the numerical value of 125-126 GeV but not other values, this theory could possibly be a successful one. Therefore, this experimental finding truly deserves grand prizes in the field of natural science. However, the road leading to the success of the Standard Model Theory is still far ahead.
The writer believes that the question why God Particle (and other particles) possesses weighted value of mass with quantification is the most “empirical” and most “practical” problem brought by the Standard Model Theory, which can avoid further theoretical dispute. If the Standard Model Theory can not even tackle this problem, how can we rely on it to explicate the generation problem of mass of other particles?

My e-mail address: pikewei@263.net



Return to “Physics Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest