Magical particles

 Zbigniew Andrzej Nowacki

 Lodz, Poland, April 2012

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the theoretical discovery of so-called divine particles. Some hope that the any day now the existence of these particles will be confirmed experimentally. Therefore, this would be a beautiful gift from Nature for the jubilee.

Unfortunately, Nature is not giving away such gifts. You can find out her mysteries only via hard work in which the most important thing is to develop a theoretical basis. For without a proper theory either experimenters do not know what to look for or they look for wrong things. One example is the ether sought in vain by physicists of the nineteenth century, another is just the God particle.

The situation of physicists can be graphically described as follows. Suppose that behind a corner of a street there is a stop of trams and buses. If a large group of people (decay products) go down the street,  we may infer that either a tram (Higgs boson) or bus (another particle) has come. However, someone who knows nothing about buses will maintain that a tramcar has arrived. This is the position of physicists; what is more, they do not know that on this line trams have never been.

Examining decay products physicists can merely conclude that in this case there was a decay of a particle having a mass, being electrically neutral, and possessing spin and baryon number (and other quantum numbers) equal to zero. But all too little is to be the Higgs boson. To avoid future ridicule, experimenters should show that suspected of divinity particle is able to fulfill its role, i.e., to give mass to other particles. If you ask physicists about this, they will reply probably that it cannot be done. Then ask them why they create theories that are not able to be positively verified.

In reality, the divine particles not only do not exist, but they even cannot exist and they are needed for nothing. Instead, we will be able to discover magical particles. They may have different electric charges, spins and baryon numbers, and their masses are in the range from 80 to 250 GeV. (For comparison: the God particle, if it existed, would have a mass around 200 GeV, as until recently experts have claimed.) I will explain later where they come from. (For those who know the history of particle physics: I have ordered them.) And one of them is an electrically neutral boson decaying just as the hypothetical God particle.

Child of Elementary Particles

Magical particles lead to the disclosure of the probably greatest mysteries of modern physics, i.e., the internal structure of quarks and the derivation of all elementary particles. This is accomplished by the so-called 

The 'tinion' term comes (in this context) from the word 'tiny' (like 'gluon' from 'glue'), which implies its pronunciation. We assume that:

Each fundamental particle is, in fact, a one-dimensional string of tinions.

Four tinions (radiant, material, strange, and wild) are the smallest physical objects. (In physics, they play the role of bits in information technology; everything is made up of them and, of course, their antiparticles, and after all the meanings of the words 'bit' and 'tiny' are similar.) This is where quantum reality comes from.

Searching for component particles is an alternative (relative to searching for intermediate bosons ) method for the development of physics. We can express it in the form of the following advice:

Always look for component fermions, and then bosons will emerge themselves.

For instance, quarks revealed the existence of gluons. On the other hand, the tinion hypothesis leads, among other things, to the discovery of the so-called info bosons.

Free tinions cannot be observed, just like quarks. So you may ask what causes this, because in the case of quarks their colors matter. Do tinions have any completely new features? No, in this case Nature is more subtle. Take the electric and baryonic charges and add them up for all fundamental particles. You might be surprised, but you will only get integer values, even for quarks!

Therein lies the whole secret of tinion confinement. Just as particles with fractional electric charge cannot be observed at the subatomic or even subnuclear level, particles with a fractional baryoelectric charge (the sum of baryonic and electric charge), such as tinions, cannot be observed even inside protons, neutrons, and other hadrons. 

Let us recall that after the quark hypothesis had been put forward, there was talk of a great revolution because fractional electric charges appeared for the first time. By introducing a fractional baryoelectric charge we shift the revolution down one rung. As a result, we are able to look inside quarks and other fundamental particles.

The baryonic interaction only manifests itself when both particles have a fractional baryoelectric charge. This property of the baryonic field explains why it has never been observed to act between fundamental particles. On the other hand, inside fundamental particles this field acts with extraordinary strength, making it impossible to break them apart.

It is also impossible to detect the residual baryonic field analogous to the residual strong interaction acting between nucleons. This is because the baryonic field operates in a one-dimensional world and does not have (like the gravitational field) energetic particles similar to gluons or photons. Therefore, the baryonic field can, at least currently, only be studied by analyzing collisions of fundamental particles.

It is possible to combine the electromagnetic and baryonic fields into one field. It is enough to assume (no particles needed) that the new baryoelectric field acts as a baryonic field if the baryoelectric charges of both particles are fractional, and as an electromagnetic field otherwise (the baryonic charges are then ignored). Furthermore, the weak nuclear field is actually a special case of the gravitational field, and the electroweak field does not exist because there are no Higgs particles. In this way, in physics we would have only three fundamental fields: gravitational, strong nuclear, and baryoelectric. 

Tinion Internal Model 

Lodz, Poland, July 2012

It happened once that three bridge players (two gentlemen and one lady, precisely speaking) wanted to play a rubber. So they had to find a fourth partner necessarily. Just a tramp in a patched sweater was walking down the street, and he agreed to help them. The vagabond was a little crazy, he was raving something about the omnipotent information, but it turned out that he played bridge very well. They played a wonderful rubber and called it THE WORLD.

TIM (Tinion Internal Model) is a theory that explains the origin of all particles, bosons and fermions, baryons and leptons, hadrons, quarks, protons, mesons, atoms, electrons, photons, etc. It can be compared with the periodic table of elements. In particular, TIM explains why in Nature there are exactly three electron-like particles differing only in mass. Currently the only person on Earth who knows the answer to this question is the author of the website (unfortunately, in science there is no democracy).

TIM provides for the existence of all particles known so far and of a number of others, including the family of magical particles. In this model there is no Higgs boson; the concept of mass is explained in another way. Recently physicists at CERN have announced the discovery of a new particle being an electrically neutral boson will spin and baryon number equal to zero and a mass around 125 GeV. Now there are two possible variants of further development of events:

1. The new particle is the Higgs boson. To confirm this, experimenters must necessarily demonstrate that it is able to give mass to at least one other particle. And this will be the end of their work. The Standard Model will be complete, so LHC will be probably converted into a museum, and physicists of CERN will be able to go into retirement.

2. The new particle is a magical boson. To corroborate this, the boson is no longer needed, and it is sufficient to confirm the existence of other magical particles. (In particular, the careful examination of the spin of the detected particle can exclude the Higgs boson at 100% confidence level.) LHC and more powerful accelerators will be needed, and physicists will have a lot of interesting work.

Some already maintain that the Higgs boson has been just discovered at CERN. Equally well one may say that the existence of my boson has been corroborated. In particle physics there had already been cases where discovered things turned out later to be something completely different. Therefore, I advise you against saying that they found the Higgs boson. If you speak only of a new particle, this will be always true.

Problems with Bosons

Lodz, Poland, November 2013

Modern physics assumes that interactions between particles consist in the exchange of other particles called intermediate bosons. In 1935, the Japanese physicist Yukawa tried to apply this idea to the then little-known nuclear forces, and stated that their bosons should have a mass between 200 and 300 electronic masses. Twelve years later, there were actually discovered bosons (now called p mesons or pions) with a mass of about 270 times that of the electron. Physicists recognized them as the intermediate bosons of the strong interaction, and in 1949 Yukawa received the Nobel Prize.

At present we know that all this happened by accident. The real bosons of nuclear forces are particles called gluons, but their properties are diametrically different from those anticipated by Yukawa. Gluon waves (wave-particle duality comes into play) carry the residual strong field, a bit like photons do for the electromagnetic field. (Creating virtual pions is theoretically possible, but we believe that Nature chooses the simplest methods.)

Currently, we are witnessing similar events (with the fact that in this case the mass does not match from the beginning). In 2012, the CERN found a particle which was hailed as the long-sought Higgs boson. In reality, physicists know very little of the particle; practically only that if we neglect internal structure, it differs from the electrically neutral p meson merely with the mass. Therefore, one may expect that the subsequent history of the particle will be identical. 

Some physicists seem to reason as follows: "Our theories are absolutely true. So it must be the Higgs boson, because our theories do not predict the existence of other particles." (And on this basis they will claim that the Standard Model has been well confirmed in all experiments.) We believe that this reasoning should be carried out in the opposite direction, i.e., from experience to theory, for one cannot prove the veracity of the Standard Model assuming in advance that it is correct. (In fact, all current theories of physicists are false, as I will try to show by the end of this decade.) It ought to be at least examined experimentally whether the particle has some internal structure (for if it has, then is not the Higgs), and this has not been even started. 

Let us return to the problem of mass. Just recently physicists have predicted that the Higgs boson should have a mass of about 200 GeV, whereas the newly detected particle has a mass of about 125 GeV. If this is a  fundamental particle (i.e., without an internal structure), then it can be difficult to explain why it has been discovered nearly twenty years after the last quark, which has a greater mass (of about 170 GeV). 

And at the end there is a good news: The designers of the Higgs boson (it does not matter here if it exists in nature) have just received the Nobel Prize. In the history of science it would be hard to find a more useless invention, but we congratulate and hope that at least the prize money will be used for a respectable goal.

I am getting my way

Lodz, Poland, January 2019

Until now, the scientists from CERN have claimed at press conferences that they have discovered the Higgs boson, and according to the Standard Model there is nothing more. Recently, however, the management of the organization have announced that a new collider will be built, and it will be much more powerful than the previous one. They probably do not plan to throw money down the drain; they have long known that the Standard Model is not true.

One has to applaud this initiative; it is consistent with what I wrote earlier. I may say that this accelerator will be able to detect particles (I already know their properties) that will change life on Earth. For example, it will be possible to produce numerous new antibiotics about which bacteria know nothing and are therefore not resistant to them. Effective antivirals, cancer drugs, etc., may also come out. Engineers, on the other hand, will have at their disposal new materials with unusual properties.

I recently learned that several years ago, physicists from the Fermilab center discovered a particle with a mass of about 125 GeV and a spin of 1. I looked in the press and found that indeed; even printed newspapers had written about it. I think that the American scientists, known for their professionalism, could not have been mistaken in this matter. This, of course, means that the Standard Model is false, and particles of this mass cannot be Higgs bosons, even if they have spin 0. What's more, since the discovery of Fermilab occurred before 2012, the CERN scientists must have known about it. It follows that they deliberately misled the physics community. (Someone had to provide them with protection; they wouldn't dare to do it themselves.)

Some claim that the new device will continue (at the earliest from 2035, do physicists want to wait so long?) to look for dark matter. Let me remind you that it was fruitlessly carried out for ten years using the old collider, for a few dozen years in mines, and for a dozen or so years using detectors with a liquid noble gas, such as xenon or argon. Wise people say in such cases that most probably the whole conception is wrong (and they do not lose money and time to search). So exactly it is, and that's why the new accelerator will not detect dark matter again.