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, emergence and particle - unparticle duality

This post is a reaction to two recent articles (1, 2) from HEP arXiv section (via KFC's blog), which are illustrating conceptual problems of formal approach of mainstream physics clearly.

These article quoted lacks the definition of emergence, duality, particle and unparticle concepts too much to be able to claim the things like "particles are dual to unparticles" or "quantum mechanics is of emergent nature" reliably. By my opinion it's even impossible to propose relevant formal description of concepts without robust definition of them at the semantic level. Without it no formal derivation can be interpreted and used by another theories. By AWT Universe is formed by infinitely dense environment, the observability of which corresponds the system of nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas (a condensing supercritical fluid in particular).



By AWT, our Universe could appear like fractal cloud similar to Perlin noise and after then every particle or artifact inside of our Universe becomes a sort of unparticle, observed from perspective of another one. This perspective introduces a sort of causality into chaotic view of our Universe, because only causal gradients (a “particles”) is what we can observe from this chaos.

Double relativity (DR) is based on dynamical relationship of two systems of reference: when one system of reference has been immobilized, it temporarily becomes an absolute point of reference. In this moment, at least two cases of DR were proposed so far, based on de Sitter and Poincaré invariant space-time group accordingly. Poincaré spacetime group appears slightly less general, being based on Lorentz symmetry of special relativity, while de Sitter spacetime group relies to equivalence principle of general relativity.

Therefore I still don’t see any evidence for particle - unparticle duality here: particles are always a subset of unparticles by DR, not a dual representation of it. And if it appears so from perspective of DR, then the DR is demonstrating its limits in this point, which is probably given by fact, it's a formal theory and the particle - unparticle duality is relevant for infinitely dense particle field, i.e. singular case of every formal theory. By AWT only infinitely implicit ("fractal") theory can become an equivalent of infinitely dense Aether and/or abstract unparticle model. This leads to requirement of triple, quadruple,... etc. relativity naturally. Only {inside of such/exsintric perspective of} "infinite relativity" the particle and unparticle models can become dual completely.

Second article suffers by similar causal problem, because by its name quantum mechanics can be virtually everything, until we define, what the “Emergent Phenomenon” really is. By AWT every “deeper level dynamics” is nothing else, then the particle dynamics of in many other deeper levels of particle fluctuations, i.e. the unparticle dynamics. Therefore unparticle geometrodynamics appears like best way, how to formalize emergence concept. But because it wasn't formalized yet, we cannot use it for derivation of any testable conclusions, predictions the less. Without predictions every article about "emergent physics" becomes just a metaphysics based on formal math up to level, we can talk about duality of rigor and postmodern philosophy. This is because the predictability of both formal, both nonformal hypothesis vanishes mutually and ceases to zero with increasing scope. Nonformal approach of philosophy becomes a quite powerful tool there, because both philosophy, both formal math is based on predicate logics.

Mainstream science uses positivist approach very often from pragmatic reasons by the same way, like medicinemans of ancient era have used their tools to keep their significance in the eyes of the rest of society. It handles the phenomena by formal way of various regression of reality without worrying, whether they're valid at the robust logics level - i.e. whether they're not an apparent nonsense, to say it by less diplomatic way. Such approach is analogous to epicycle solution of conceptual problems of geocentric model and it corresponds to solving of homework assignation without understanding of problem at the abstract level first. After all, the contemporary learning system purportedly trains new scientists to formal way of reality description, not understanding. This positivist approach my be a consequence of fact, scientists are payed for filling of publications with equations - but not for explanation of subject - so they just adopted to this situation.

From AWT perspective the unparticle concept is still ad hoced, as we can see it in the nested field of nested fluctuations of Boltzmann gas . We can paraphrase here a proverb "The optimist sees the doughnut; the pessimist the hole":

Where physicist sees a particle, mathematican can see a pure geometry only.

But can a "pure geometry" interact with/observe/describe a pure geometry? I really don't think so - or the Universe is one big cheap illussion and we're observing anything. Here's still some fifth element hidden behind particle concept. By my opinion it's a consequence of seemingly trivial fact, we are only part of Universe. Why?

If we could reveal a general explicit rule in sequence of prime numbers or in Fibonnacci spirals inside of growing pile of particles, we could postulate a very general emergence group, which would become nonlocal and very universal by such way. But I don't think, such group exists at all. If we are formed by pure geometry, then we should admit, then the pure geometry can observe/interacts with itself. Such identity would violate Goedel's theorems, Aether concept, virtually everything, what we know about reality so far.

Therefore the question is, why Universe is always larger, then our observable scope? I can feel, the limited speed of information spreading could answer this question, at least partially.