Friday, March 6, 2015

Higgs Boson Buries Standard Model?

Abstract and Introduction
Contrary to common belief, work on the Higgs field and boson [1] may be a significant nail in the coffin for the Standard Model (SM) in physics. The scalar Higgs field may in fact describe adjacent pairs of spot units which implement the strong bit operation ("strong force") in binary mechanics (BM) [2]. With the discovery of the central baryon bit cycle [3], this binary definition of the strong force is the basis for quark confinement. Observed particle motion requires 1-state bit emission from one baryon cycle with subsequent absorption by another cycle. The Higgs boson may represent one or more instances of strong force scattering which confines 1-state bits in cycles and thereby prevents particle motion. Recall that particle mass, as the force/acceleration ratio, describes the inverse of the likelihood of such particle motion. The so-called Higgs mechanism is said to confer mass on fermion particles, a concept apparently equivalent to confinement of 1-state bits in cycles. This speculative article steps through this process and discusses some consequences, namely diminished SM and enhanced BM credibility.

1. The Higgs field as perpendicular pairs of adjacent spot units
The scalar Higgs field in the SM is thought to consist of four real components {Φ0, Φ1, Φ2, Φ3}. These real components in the Higgs field Φ may be written as a vector in a two dimensional space

where each abstract dimension is represented by a complex value using two of the real components [1]. These complex values may represent fundamental spatial units defined in BM. This is our first clue.

Derived from a pair of relativistic Dirac spinor equations of opposite handedness, BM might be regarded as an upgrade to the "full quantization version" of quantum mechanical (QM) concepts in the SM. BM postulates quantize space, time and energy independent of the time factor in Planck's constant. Of present interest, the two real components of the QM wave function amplitude are projected to the M (mite; fermion) and L (lite; boson) loci in a quantized spatial object named the spot unit (Fig. 1 from Fig. 1A in [2]), where d is the BM fundamental length constant.

Fig. 1: Spot Unit with M and L Binary Bit Loci

BM further postulates that these two real components of the QM wave function amplitude may have only binary values of 0 or 1, where 1 represents a quantized unit of energy. A previous report details this correspondence between QM complex wave function amplitudes and the BM bit function based on spot unit bits (eq. 2, Table 1 in [2]).

In a physical interpretation of BM space [4], three spot units form a spot and eight spots represent the eight fundamental particles [5] and form a spot cube (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Spot Cube Has Eight Spots Each With Three Spot Units

Legend: Electron spot (yellow). Matter d quark spots (dark red, green, blue). Antimatter d quark spots (light red, green, blue). 001 to 111: integer XYZ spot position coordinates. Positron spot 000 not visible in this perspective.

Given the correspondence described, one might speculate that the two complex values in the Higgs field may be seen to represent two adjacent perpendicular spot units within a spot and between which 1-state bit motion may occur during the time tick t implementing the strong bit operation. That is, the complex scalar Higgs field doublet may represent the set of all bit locus pairs sharing a surface in perpendicular spot units. Notice that perpendicular pairs of spot units occur only within spots (Fig. 2) so that the mass attribute may occur for each of the eight elementary particles depending on their charge and color properties, direction and handedness, which are entirely determined by modulo 2 parities of spot coordinates (odd or even).

One similarity is that both the Higgs field and the spatial lattice of spot cubes are thought to exist continuously or unconditionally, unlike, say, electrostatic or magnetic fields. Second, an association between the Higgs field and BM spatial structures based on quantized space might almost be welcome theoretically. After all, the Higgs field is unusual as purportedly the only scalar field in the SM. One option is to simply get rid of it, stipulating that the spot cube lattice was previously probed by work on a speculative Higgs field. Third, the proposed Higgs boson is thought to have zero spin which is also somewhat unusual, but perhaps consistent with a basis in the strong bit operation implemented by spot units as defined spatial structures. Fourth, the BM strong bit operation involves pairs of adjacent spot units and with the unconditional bit operation, results in bit cycling which represents absence of particle motion. The relation of this phenomenon to the idea of mass will complete the story.

2. Physical basis for the Higgs mass mechanism
The discovery of the central baryon bit cycle may be key to understanding the physical basis for the much tauted Higgs mass mechanism. As described previously [3], repeated application of the BM strong and unconditional bit operations results in return of a 1-state bit to its original t = 0 position, in the 12t electron bit cycle and the 84t hadron (baryon) bit cycle, where t is the BM quantized time unit. The central baryon bit cycle is the physical basis for quark confinement and of present interest, represents lack of particle motion (although bits continuously move within cycle locations). Particle motion, say, of a proton, requires 1-state bit emission from one baryon cycle with subsequent absorption by another cycle in a neighboring spot cube. The Higgs boson may represent one or more instances of strong force scattering which confines 1-state bits in cycles and thereby prevents particle motion. Recall that particle mass, as the force/acceleration ratio, quantifies the inverse of the likelihood of such particle motion. The so-called Higgs mechanism is said to confer mass on fermion particles, a concept apparently equivalent to confinement of 1-state bits in cycles. Thus, the Higgs mechanism may historically be regarded as an early attempt to understand the mass factor in the probability of particle motion prior to the quantization of space, time and energy.

The SM may be discussed in terms of its attempt to organize experimental data into a relatively simple scheme to classify particles and in terms of its related mathematical modeling. On both grounds, the SM is seriously out of date. For example, the eight elementary particles have been reduced to four types of spot unit building blocks [5], which now probably should be the current focus of research to understand the fundamental composition of the universe. There was a time when parsimony and simplicity were prized in physics. A poster-child for needless complexity is SM mathematical modeling. For example, the physics community seems to have talked itself into thinking a Higgs boson is required to understand mass, i.e., the force/acceleration ratio. In contrast, the basic math required in BM does not go much beyond simple binary logic. For example, a force acting on a 1-state bit has only two values -- one or zero -- and is an AND function of three required, defining binary quantities [6].

SM math has fundamental flaws. At the very start, we are asked to be gullible enough to accept quantum fields defined at all points in space-time. Before even a single mathematical expression is written, we have infinities. In any volume, the story is that there is an infinite number of values for a quantum field physically encoded by some mechanism presumably occupying zero volume. That is about as opposite to the meaning of the word "quantum" as one can get. Maybe the story is more about greed than gullibility: The SM does not politely serve itself some points; it loads its plate with all points apparently requiring infinite numbers of infinitely small physical mechanisms encoding field values. By the way, these supposed point-like field encoding devices are not simple 1-bit calculators for AND logic of finite size mentioned above, but rather advanced and infinitely small floating point calculators handling complex numbers. Not to mention that if the fields actually do anything physically, those mechanisms must be infinitely tiny also.

Of course, nobody even mentions the feasibility that a universe could be built where arbitrarily small volumes contain an infinite number of apparently zero-volume devices encoding field items. Aside from position coordinates, the geometric concept of a point has a known physical interpretation, namely nothing. But pretending that field values which the math assumptions say are nothing at "all points" are really something, does not qualify as acceptable science, particularly in physics. Somehow this sort of nonsense gets assimilated by physics students who subsequently accept that SM mathematics is replete with infinities and singularities which need to be "fixed" by renormalization. In short, the assumption of continuous space-time without known justification other than tradition or superstition undermines confidence in conclusions based on the applied mathematical models. The present focus is a particular conclusion, namely that a Higgs mechanism is required to explain mass. The present premise is that the Higgs mechanism is not needed on any basis to explain anything at all about mass, forces or particle acceleration.

The magical thinking in quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics compared to the precision of BM as a physical theory was discussed previously [7]. The motion of physical objects backwards in time as a mathematical impossibility has also been discussed [8].

To an unbiased observer, the whole Higgs story at CERN may appear to be some sort of fairy tale where some number of "scalar fields" magically become "degrees of freedom" in "massive bosons" and if that were not enough, miraculously "couple" Yukawa-style to fermions to "create" mass. And this is the "simple" version of the explanation. Where actual science is practiced, suspension of disbelief should not be required as in enjoyment of a good science fiction movie. The above Higgs scenario by trained investigators may be more contrived and implausible than even a low quality science fiction film. How many "If A (which we really don't know), then B (which we are not sure of either)" statements does it take to loose an audience? A recent paper wrote [9]: "Consider that CERN has yet to provide a downloadable bit function 3D matrix for the Higgs boson. Do they have any clue about what this object really is? If so, show us its bit function so anybody can study its properties and behavior on any decent lap-top."

The present speculative article hopes to salvage some sense and logic from the incredible story of the Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism work might be fairly viewed as containing the seeds of important insights that came to fruition with full quantization in BM leading to discovery of bit cycles and their consequences regarding particle mass and motion.

Homework assignment. Solving eq. 9 in [9] for electron rest mass may be the first-ever calculation of electron mass from first principles of a comprehensive, fundamental physical theory using the BM length constant d and several familiar values such as Planck's constant. Assuming that in principle most or all of the mass values in the present some 19 SM input parameters can also be calculated from BM postulates and their consequences, the homework assignment is to assess how many of the remaining SM parameters might be eliminated immediately if the BM "full quantization version" were installed to upgrade the SM math modeling to 21st century standards. Get extra credit for calculating other "input" mass values.

Bonus field trip. The patient reader earns the award of a bonus field trip. Look up any arbitrary set of manufacturers and call their sales department, "We would like to order an infinite number of Model (fill in blank) units for delivery as soon as possible to the CERN facility." Record the reaction you get. And a bonus prediction! You may find that the typical manufacturer person, who may not even have a high school diploma, exhibits a more rigorous approach to math and physics than the entire scientific staff and research groups at CERN combined when it comes to real world realities, which is what physics is supposed to be about. Next, present your findings to the politicians when the yearly CERN budget of over one billion Swiss Francs comes up, explaining, "Our experts assure you that they need infinities and infinities are not cheap."

Editor's note: The reader is invited to post comments in agreement or disagreement with this or other Journal of Binary Mechanics articles at the Binary Mechanics Forum. The Journal also welcomes on-topic articles from other investigators and persons considering serving on the Journal's editorial board.

[1] Wikipedia. "Higgs boson", 2015.
[2] Keene, J. J. "Binary mechanics" J. Bin. Mech. July, 2010.
[3] Keene, J. J. "The central baryon bit cycle" J. Bin. Mech. March, 2011.
[4] Keene, J. J. "Physical interpretation of binary mechanical space" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2011.
[5] Keene, J. J. "Spot unit components of elementary particles" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
[6] Keene, J. J. "Fundamental forces in physics" J. Bin. Mech. October, 2014.
[7] Keene, J. J. "Non-spherical proton shape" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2015.
[8] Keene, J. J. "Non-zero proton electric dipole moment" J. Bin. Mech. February, 2015.
[9] Keene, J. J. "Intrinsic electron spin and fundamental constants" J. Bin. Mech. January, 2015.
© 2015 James J Keene