Higgs boson as an unparticle

The unparticle concept was proposed by Harward professor Howard Gorgi before few years. AWT introduces unparticles by concept of fractally nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas. For example clouds are scale invariant unparticle stuff, similar to Perlin noise. Recently D. Stancato & J. Terning have proposed unparticle character of Higgs bosone. Prof. Hawking reckons, that a number of "partner" particles will emerge, instead, thus making prof. Higgs upset by his stance.

This is not so difficult to understand, because from common perspective the unparticle hypothesis would effectively mean, no distinct Higgs particle signal will be ever found, until we achieve collider jets, composed of unique particles to demonstrate it - because Higgs field interaction would have a character of kink widespread over ultraviolet part of mass-energy spectrum. Could prof. Higgs deserve Nobel price, if it turns out Higgs boson is just some Unhiggs?

In more illustrative way, Unhiggs field is analogous to coat of virtual quarks, in which all elementary particles are surrounded at small distances. This coat glues particles together at smallest distances. Such unstable particles can still be observed by their collective effects, for example by jet suppression during particle collisions. Just because it's difficult to call them particles they're called an unparticles. It's responsible for so called Yukawa coupling, responsible for pairing and gluing of nucleons and quarks inside of atom nuclei, for formation of top-quark pairs, glueballs, pentaquark and another artifacts, which were observed recently at Tevatron.

From Standard model follows, the product of Higgs boson Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks have nearly the same rest mass (173.1±1.3 GeV/c2) like those predicted for Higgs boson (178.0 ± 4.3 GeV/c2). It means, Higgs boson was observed already at Tevatron as a product of top-quark coupling and identified by dilepton channel of top-quark decay.

In AWT such field exists at all scales and it manifests by Casimir force mediated by virtual photons at micrometer scale, or dark matter at megaparsec scale, for example.  It means, Higgs field has a scale invariant character of fuzzy unparticles, which are changing their size accordingly to carrier particles. The combination of trivial and topological band insulators within topological insulators and superconductors is bringing anyons and plektons - unparticles that behave neither according to purely Bose nor Fermi statistics.

The title of recent NewScientist article "In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for" illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "Uhm, well, ... we really don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry, for not being blamed completely before publicity". The question is, whether physicists could admit openly before publicity, LHC is useless with respect to search of Higgs boson even by their own theories, if they wasted so much money in it.

This is a demo, how seemingly spontaneous scientific PR is basically working. Dual situation appeared recently in media, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "quantum-spread", which renders detectors of gravitational waves useless. With respect to AdS/CFT duality the success or problems with particle search at Planck scale will be replicated/mirrored at cosmological scales (WIMPs detection) and vice-versa.

The similar U-turn we could expect later regarding estimations of LHC collider safety. The most problematic part of Unhiggs detection at LHC is the strangelet controversy: in contact with terresterial matter it could enable avalanche chain formation of clusters of particles, analogous to stable microscopic black holes predicted by Randall-Sundrum model. Recently A. Choptuik demonstrated, when extra-dimensions are involved, black hole could be formed with compare to existing CERN safety analysis, considering Hawking radiation as the only mechanism of black hole evaporation (1, 2, 3). In addittion, CERN considers, black hole could interact with its neighborhood via gravitational interaction only, thus purportedly neglecting their electromagnetic interaction, which is 10e+41 x stronger.

"Does that mean the LHC will make black holes? Not necessarily", Choptuik says. "The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum. So the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. Predicted by certain theories, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor."

Well, if some extra-dimensions could wipe-out one quintillion factor (?!?) of LHC safety expected, can scientists admit, they're openly planning to verify theory, which predicts formation of stable black holes just by formation of black holes at LHC? Could CERN physicists ever admit, it could be qualified as an criminal act by the rest of society?

We should realize, CERN physicists just want to build and operate LHC collider despite of any risk, because it provides them safe and stable jobs and environment for scientific carrier. They're supported in their activities by lobby of private companies involved in technical support of LHC. We could say, high concentration of money in civilization leads to spontaneous formation of dense states of matter in simmilar way, like dense concentration of energy in universe. The desinformed rest of society underestimated these emergent relationships, which resulted into establishing of large groups of people, who are openly ignorant - if not even hostile - to further destiny of civilization.

AWT and CP symmetry violation

In AWT CP symmetry violation is a consequence of dispersion of energy through Aether foam with increasing number of dimensions. While the energy spread along space-time brane in symmetric way, with increasing mass/energy density the fragmentation of time dimensions occurs.  Quantum foam gets more dense with increasing energy density in similar way like soap foam under shaking and it changes itself into foam with small spherical bubbles similar to fluid, which results into collective motion of particles involved. The constituents of quark-gluon plasma are strongly coupled, causing their collective flow. This coupling is basically well known Yukawa coupling, which can be explained by presence of Higgs field. As I explained already here, formation of top-quark pairs can be interpreted like formation of Higgs bosons, which are of the same rest mass and mechanism of dilepton decay channel.

The fragmentation of quantum foam into smaller bubbles leads to fragmentation of time arrows and violation of jet symmetry during RHIC/LHC collisions of heavy atom nuclei. The same fragmentation can be observed near rotating black holes (Kerr solution leads to multiple event horiozons) and polarization of CMB at 40 MPc+ scale. The symmetry violation during jet formation could be explained by omnidirectional space-time expansion during torus spinning - the inner part of ring always rotates faster, so it's dragged into axis direction.

The violation of jet symmetry can be understood as an example of CP symmetry violation, which was observed first at the case of spin polarized and cooled cobalt-60 nuclei (1956), which are emanating electrons in asymmetric way. The same stuff we can observed at the case of jets of black holes (like the famous M87 and Centaurus A, which are asymmetric in similar way, like jets emanated by quark-gluon plasma during collider experiments. The second jet should be formed by jet of supersymetric particles, fotinos in particular. The absorption of jet demonstrates, how easily the QG plasma can be feeded by matter under formation of strangelets or even black holes.

In this connection it may be significant, CMB cold spot is unpaired too (if the observable Universe is formed by black hole, we could see through polar jet into hyper-universe). The observed parity violation of galaxies and CMB Doppler anisotropy should be correlated to CMB cold spot direction, too. Because jets of black holes are exaggerated example of gravity brightening, we could observe CP symmetry violation by difference of polar temperatures and curvatures at the case of giant rotating stars, too. In this connection it's interesting too, even Earth globe has a pear shape, which deforms Earth ellipsoid by elevation of about two hundred meters at north pole. It's interesting, Christopher Columbus considered it in 17th century already, while promoting westward voyage to Cathay (China) or Zipangu (Japan).

Is light of pulsar spreading in superluminal speed?

This post is a reaction to recent PW article Pulsar bursts move 'faster than light'. It's not true, this phenomenon was described in an astronomical object first - the same effect was disputed before years for motion of bright areas in jet of M87 galaxy, where it has supposedly the same explanation. As a dense aether proponent I appreciate readers, who are trying to think "out of box" - but in this case, this particular observation has really nothing to do with Aether and "violation of Lorentz symmetry" - but with peculiar way, in which light of pulsars propagates through environment filled by particles of interstellar gas. The animation bellow illustrates it by computer simulation:

This phenomena is related to way, in which light is propagating through so-called metamaterials. The uncertainty about exact source position is the reason, why we cannot talk about information exchange between observer and object, because the amplitude of light travels through interstellar gas in noncausual way. After all, it's not wave itself (group velocity), but an amplitude of light (phase velocity), which is traveling here by superluminal speed in analogy to motion of laser spot along surface of moon. The supersonic sound wave "spreading" was observed during spreading of ultrasound pulses through dense polystyrene dispersions in water, too.

A more intriguing question could be, whether longitudinal component of CMB noise - i.e. superluminal gravitational waves could be interpreted by analogous dispersion of light waves on Higgs field forming vacuum. In this moment I'm unable to decide, whether such perspective is relevant to reality and if it could lead to some new testable predictions. It could be somehow related to so called block-universe concept, by which reality in motion occurs by inhomogeneous spreading of information through Aether lattice at rest - which I personally consider biased toward atemporal perspective of Universe.

Lie E8 group and quantum criticality

Exceptional Lie E8 group shot to fame in 2007, when the US freelance physicist Garrett Lisi posted a paper on the arXiv preprint server suggesting that E8 could map out all known particles and their mutual interactions. However a well before in 1988 the Russian physicist Alexander Zamolodchikov showed that E8 symmetry could also describe the spectrum of spin excitations that occur in 1D Ising ferromagnets. Radu Coldea of Oxford University and colleagues at the Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin (HZB) have measured the energies of several of these quasiparticles by cooling the cobalt niobate to 40 mK and firing neutrons at it. When the experiment was done at zero magnetic field, five quasiparticles were spotted. Their energies are described by a mathematical formula derived three decades ago by Barry McCoy and Tai Tsun Wu.

Density of magnetic domains increases with increasing magnetic field in simmilar way, like density of gas fluctuations under pressure. At certain moment, the nested density fluctuations are formed in similar way, which we can observe during condensation of supercritical vapor. As the strength of the field was increased to the quantum critical value of 5.5 T, the ratio of energies of the first two quasiparticles approached 1.618. This number is the "golden ratio" and is precisely what should be measured if the quasiparticles are described by E8 – a prediction that was made more than 20 years ago by prof. Zamolodchikov.

As explained previously by concept of quantum foam, root system of E8 Lie group solves trivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, formed by energy exchange of another particles?". And such question has perfect meaning even from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles formed by energy exchange between another particles, which we can ever imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole, which is forming the vacuum. Therefore it's not so strange, both one of heterotic string theories, both Garretts E8 theory is dealing with E8 group and Horava's theory deals with quantum critical point. The animations bellow are illustrating, how most compact particle packing is related to golden mean ratio observed in critical point. By AWT the E8 is based on the geometry of most compact packing geometry possible and most dense particle packing happens when packing density along surface and volume becomes exactly balanced.

Golden mean ratio is closely related to densest particle packing in similar way, like the E8 group geometry. We can expect,  certain random arrangement of particles is more compact, then another ones, so energy spreads in slowest way and the cosmic space appears largest in it.  In natural systems golden mean minimizes the surface/volume ratio, i.e. it defines most effective object packing in situations, where many particles are involved. In such objects energy spreads in slowest possible way (because they're so compact), which means, these objects are most stable and atemporal, i.e. they're of highest fitness and they can survive easier. Human brain is just an engine for particularly slow but atemporal energy spreading (i.e. without dispersion). Solitons (not just those in human brain) consist of waves, where frequency and energy of components follows golden mean ratio, too. Evolution is analogous to travel in dispersive environment, so we can imagine particles and planets as a most compact solitons, which survived the travel through CMB noise in most successful way.

The most compact arrangement or repulsing particle corresponds so called Wigner phase inside of cold plasma crystals. Another system, which could exhibit E8 symmetry are nested density fluctuations, which occurs inside of condensing supercritical vapor temporarily. During this the nested density fluctuations of mutually repulsing particles should be formed, which leads into compact structure of kissing hyperspheres, described just by root vector system of Lie's E8 group.

We can apply the above principles to area of scientific research too. Research follows both information spreading along well defined gradients/surfaces of knowledge, i.e. formal theories, both intuitive holistic thinking through bulk of knowledge independently to existing theories (so called "crackpottery", but I rather call it a "mutations" in evolution of knowledge). After then the most effective strategy is just the approach, where the formal and intuitive approaches are balanced in golden mean ratio. So we shouldn't expect, only blind combinations of equations will lead to some TOE fast - intuitive insights and ideas are important here, too.

AWT and cellular automata model

This post is a reaction to recent NS article 'I'm an information pack rat', which deals with personality of Stephen Wolfram. But who first had the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton? Konrad Zuse? Edward Fredkin? Certainly not Stephen Wolfram. Apparently it's not the first case of foreign ideas "packed" by Wolfram [Jim Giles, Nature 417, 216 - 218 (2002)].

In 1969  Konrad Zuse published a book called Rechnender Raum (translated later as "Digital space") theorizing, that the universe was a cellular automaton. Juergen Schmidhuber discusses this on his website: Zuse's Thesis: The Universe is a Computer, that  Konrad Zuse had the idea that the universe is running on a grid of computers as early as 1967. On the other hand, Plamen Petrov, being unaware of Zuse's work at the time, earlier dubbed this idea Fredkin's Thesis. Recently Schmidhuber observed, "Even earlier, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (who not only co-invented calculus but also built the first mechanical multiplier in 1670) caused a stir by claiming that everything is computable". Although it's clear, that Leibniz did not formulate the notion of a cellular automaton as such.
 
On the other hand, apparently Wolfram does not intend to imply that the universe is a classical cellular automaton--at least if you read the fine print.  In the Notes for Chapter 9 on pages 1026 and 1027 of his book Wolfram does acknowledge the work of Zuse and Fredkin in a single sentence. Then he goes on to say that  "no literal mechanistic model can ever in the end realistically be expected to work." I take this to refer to classical cellular automata. In his usual modest way he says, "...what must happen relies on phenomena discovered in this book--and involves the emergence of complex properties..."


It is not the first time that Wolfram has annoyed complexity researchers, who feel that he routinely fails to recognize the contributions made by others. "He tends to acknowledge people in two-point type," says one researcher. Indeed, A New Kind of Science lacks conventional references to prior work - although scientists and mathematicians including Cook are acknowledged in the book's notes section.

No doubt, Stephen Wolfram is reinnnesance personality of modern era. But I don't share ideas concerning cellular automata model of reality - in my opinion the appearance of Universe follows from principles of energy & information spreading in completely random particle system, i.e. it's randomness at its very very best. The problem of Stephen Wolfram is, he is overspecialized and biased to complexity perspective - so I'm perceiving his ideas as abstract and ad-hoced. After all, completely random Universe requires less strong postulates from Occam's razor perspective.

But we still could understand such stance from perspective of Simillia simillibus observatur theorem of AWT: every expert tends to see Universe in the light of its own specialization. Relativist would see it relativistic, aetherists like me would see it through particle field and computer scientist and mathematician would see it as a huge simulation or cellular automata model. It's logical, because every density fluctuation of Aether would interact with another fluctuations, which are similar in shape, size, energy density and so on.