|
In view of the hoohah surrounding the
Large Hadron Collider or LHC soon to begin analysing data from a billion dollar global investment by the scientific community
and its political manouverers; I should write an article discussing the predicted findings of this analysis in the model of
Quantum Relativity.
Will the multitude of particle physicists
find the Higgs Boson?
No, they will not and they will find
themselves even more confused as to its existence. They will however find a number of tantalising results hinting at a family
of Higgs Bosons and observe an lower energy threshold for the Higgs Boson, which seems to be the energy of the Zo weakon at
92 GeV.
They will also discover that the nature
of this Zo weakon is closely related to the socalled Majorana Doubleneutrino; a majorana being said to define a neutrinio
scenario where neutrinos and antineutrinos are the same particle.
I shall so describe the reasons for this
in this treatise and begin with a statement, which might appear to many, as returning science into its historical 'dark ages'
of ignorance.
The atom of elementary physics CAN be
modelled as a miniature solar system in the footsteps of Niels Bohr and even the concentricities of Ptolemy.
However, this statement does not in any
way diminish the relevance of quantum mechanics and the modern theories of Quantum-Electro-Dynamics (QED) and Quantum-Chromo-Dynamics
(QCD). What it does however, is to greatly simplify those models from first principles, i.e. it serves as a rough approximation,
not subject to perturbation theory and so is descriptive of the quantum geometry as observed in the large scale physics of
classical Newtonianism.
First note that the electron/proton mass ratio is
about 1/1830 and that this is typical for a solar mass as the proton coupled gravitationally to a large Jupiter sized planet.
For Sol, the ratio Sol/Jupiter=2x10^30/1.9x10^27~1/1050. Then a halved Jupitermass maps the electronmass to the protonmass approximately.
Some background information
Higgs boson: Glimpses of the God particle
- 02 March 2007
- NewScientist.com news service
- Anil Ananthaswamy
More Fundamentals Stories
Standard model shows the strainIf the
blips in the debris of the Tevatron particle smasher really are signs of the Higgs boson then it's not what we expected. It
might mean that it's time to replace the standard model with a more complex picture of the universe
On 9 December last
year, as John Conway looked at the results of his experiment, a chill ran down his neck. For 20 years he has been searching
for one of the most elusive things in the universe, the Higgs boson - aka the God particle - which gives everything in the
cosmos its mass. And here, buried in the debris generated by the world's largest particle smasher, were a few tantalising
hints of its existence.
Conway first revealed the news of his experiment earlier this year in a blog. Experimental particle
physicists are sceptics by nature, loath to claim the discovery of any new particle, let alone a particle of the Higgs's stature,
and in his blog Conway dismissed hints of its existence as an aberration, just as many other supposed signs of the elusive
particle have proved to be after closer examination. The tiny blips in Conway's data have so far simply refused to go away.
What's
more, using data made public last week in a second blog, another team of researchers has independently seen hints of a new
particle with similar mass. Both results may yet be dismissed, but the coincidence is striking, and is one that is getting
physicists excited. If they have found evidence of a Higgs particle, then it points towards the existence of a universe in
which each and every particle we know of has a heavier "super-partner", an arrangement of the cosmos known as supersymmetry.
The
Higgs boson is infamous as the only particle predicted by the standard model of physics that remains undetected. In theory,
every other particle in the universe gets its mass by interacting with an all-pervading field created by Higgs bosons. If
the Higgs is discovered, the standard model could justifiably claim to be the theory that unifies everything except gravity.
But
the model is creaking. Take the Higgs itself. The standard model tightly links the masses of the Higgs, the W boson (the carrier
of the weak nuclear force), and the top quark (one of the fundamental constituents of matter). Experiments at the Large Electron-Positron
(LEP) collider at CERN, near Geneva, in the late 1990s, and at the Tevatron, Fermilab's 6.3-kilometre-long particle accelerator
at Batavia, Illinois, where Conway detected his blips, have homed in on the mass of the W boson and the top quark. If you
use these measurements to calculate the mass range of the Higgs, and compare it with the standard model's predictions, you
run into trouble. "The best measurements of the W and top quark mass don't agree well with the standard model," says Conway,
who is based at the University of California, Davis (see Diagram).
Physicists such as John March-Russell of the University
of Oxford go further. "If you ask most theorists about the Higgs, they will say it is very unlikely that we'll see just the
standard model Higgs," he says. And that is what makes the hints of new particles seen by Conway and others so intriguing.
Super-partnersWith the help of the Collision Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Conway's team has
been searching for a more complex version of the Higgs than the standard model predicts - one that might support the supersymmetry
model of the universe.
"Conway's team has been searching for a more complex version of Higgs, one that
might support supersymmetry" In supersymmetry, an electron has a heavier partner called
the selectron, while quarks have squarks, and so on. Although none has yet been found, supersymmetry solves some niggling
questions raised by the standard model. For instance, when particle physicists take the measured strengths of the electromagnetic
and the weak and strong nuclear forces, and extrapolate them to the ultra-high energies of the early universe, they are supposed
to unify. The idea is that in the early universe these forces were the same. To get the forces to unify at this grand unified
theory (GUT) scale, the parameters of the standard model have to be tuned to an astounding precision of 1 part in 1032.
This
extreme fine-tuning makes many theorists uneasy. Why should the properties of the early universe have to be so exact to give
rise to the universe we have today? "It is like creating in a straitjacket," says March-Russell.
Supersymmetry, specifically
a version called the minimal supersymmetric model, achieves this grand unification more naturally, with far less fine-tuning.
The theory predicts five Higgs bosons of different masses, which makes the process by which the universe gets its mass more
complicated than that laid out by the standard model with its single Higgs. "But very often, in the history of science, nature
likes simple concepts, but it has quite complicated realisations," says March-Russell.
It's a manifestation of this
complex reality that Conway's team has been probing. They are after one of the five Higgs predicted by minimal supersymmetry.
Such a Higgs could be produced by the collision of protons and antiprotons at the Tevatron and some would decay into two tau
leptons, which are heavier cousins of the electron. The taus decay immediately into other particles, and it is this debris
the team was sifting through. Essentially, they were creating a plot which showed the mass of the particles that could give
rise to two tau leptons on the x-axis, and the number of such particles on the y-axis.
Conway admits they only expected
to see known particles decaying into tau leptons. But then, on that Saturday morning before Christmas, the CDF team saw the
blip in their plot: signs that the Tevatron had produced a small number of some unknown particle with a mass of 160 gigaelectronvolts
(GeV), which had promptly decayed to two tau leptons. "I thought maybe, just maybe, this could be the beginning of something,"
says Conway.
Convinced by their analysis, the entire CDF experiment team approved the data on 4 January and Conway presented
it at a conference in Aspen, Colorado, a few days later. The team had found a signal which, in particle physics lingo, had
a 2-sigma significance - a 1 in 50 chance of being a random fluctuation. Normally, to merit new particle status a signal must
be significant to 5-sigma - where there's only a 1 in 10 million chance of it being a fluctuation.
"People were excited
to see this," says Conway. But why was there so much excitement if the signal was statistically insignificant? That's because
a supersymmetric Higgs at this mass is extremely plausible. "This kind of [Higgs] mass of 160 GeV is on the lower end of what
we were expecting, but we are comfortable with it, in the context of supersymmetric models," says Jack Gunion, a theoretical
physicist at the University of California, Davis.
He has been advocating another version of supersymmetry called next-to-minimal
supersymmetry. When Gunion saw Conway's graph showing a possible Higgs with a mass of 160 GeV, he realised he only had to
tune the parameters of his theory by about 1 part in 10 to explain it - an amount most physicists are willing to accept. "You
can only do that in next-to-minimal supersymmetry," says Gunion. To make the minimal supersymmetry model of the universe
fit, you would have to tune it to levels that would make many physicists uncomfortable, he says.
This is not the first
time Gunion has used next-to-minimal supersymmetry to explain an anomalous signal. In the late 1990s, the LEP collider at
CERN, which smashed electrons and positrons head-on, saw what seemed to be a new particle with a mass of 100 GeV. Again, the
significance of the signal was about 2-sigma, not enough to claim a discovery. Because the signal did not sit well with a
standard model Higgs, it was mostly ignored, and the LEP shut down in 2000, making it impossible to check the signal further.
"It is still a big deal," says Gunion, because nobody could explain it."
But Gunion's next-to-minimal model could and does.
"I claim that the model provides a simple explanation, namely that there is a Higgs at 100 GeV, and that it decayed in some
extra ways that weren't expected."
That means the LEP data from the 1990s and Conway's latest findings from the CDF experiment
could point to two of the five supersymmetric Higgs particles, one with a mass of 100 GeV and the other with a mass of 160
GeV. Gunion, for one, says that it is not such a stretch to think so. "These are very naturally explained in next-to-minimal
supersymmetry."
First find the leptonThe story doesn't end there, however. Conway's initial analysis had
given them an approximate mass for the Higgs, but there was a more accurate way to determine it.
Conway looked specifically
for those tau leptons that were moving in the so-called transverse plane, which is perpendicular to the Tevatron's beam of
protons and antiprotons. In particle interactions in a collider, energy should be conserved, but some energy can be emitted
as neutrinos which cannot be detected directly. In the transverse plane, the detector can indirectly account for the missing
energy of neutrinos with great precision. So by limiting themselves to interactions in the transverse plane, the researchers
were able to accurately calculate the mass of the heavy particles that gave rise to the tau pairs, and put those heavy particles
into bins of different masses. In each bin, they could explain, from known physics, what gave rise to the tau pairs. "Except
in one bin," says Gunion. "And guess where that one bin is?"
It turns out that the bin is at about 160 GeV. It shows the
merest hint of a new particle. "There are few events out there, right at the place where we might expect a bump," says Conway.
"It is so preliminary, but it is there."
"It shows the merest hint of a new particle, right at the place where we might
expect a bump. It is so preliminary, but it is there" Conway's team is intrigued enough
to pursue their signal. "We have got data pouring in now," says Conway. "We are going to take it to the next step." This involves
doubling the statistics, increasing the sensitivity of the instruments, and even searching in other channels besides looking
for tau-lepton pairs.
While increasing statistics could help verify the veracity of the signal, one particular analysis
could nail the identity of the mystery particle. A supersymmetric Higgs should turn up with b-quarks, also known as bottom
quarks, one of the six types of quarks. "If we see a Higgs being produced in association with b-quarks, that's a dead giveaway,"
says Conway. "That's the analysis we have been working towards for six to seven years now."
Meanwhile, another team led
by Tomasso Dorigo of the University of Padua, Italy, has been independently analysing an entirely different set of particle
interactions seen by the CDF experiment and it too has found hints of some unknown particle at 160 GeV. While the team is
far from convinced that the signal is real, the coincidences are intriguing (see "Sticking with the standard model").
Markus
Schumacher of the University of Siegen in Germany is also highly sceptical that the Tevatron has seen anything new. "If you
look back in the history of particle physics, we have had a lot of 2-sigma effects," says Schumacher. "You have to wait until
the Fermilab experiment analyses more of the data." Dorigo agrees that any claims of supersymmetry, based on the CDF data
so far, are premature. "I have seen hints of new physics beyond the standard model coming and going, coming and going," he
says.
Conway also remains cautious, expecting his team's own 2-sigma signal to be a fluctuation and "evaporate". If that
is the case, then at least he has proved that the Tevatron collider is sensitive enough to catch glimpses of a host of other
theoretical particles (see "Race you to the gluino").
But if the two teams have glimpsed a supersymmetric Higgs, then the
doors to the unknown are wide open. "It's like the first few pages of a thriller," says March-Russell. "You get the first
little hint that something strange is happening and that things are not quite what they seem. Then the evidence accumulates.
We are turning the first few pages of this very interesting story."
From issue 2593 of New Scientist magazine,
02 March 2007, page 8-11
Race you to the gluinoThe chill felt by John Conway in December
could be a foretaste of things to come. The 160-gigaelectronvolt (GeV) signal seen at the Tevatron particle collider
suggests that it is capable of testing the supersymmetry model of the universe by searching for the "super-partners" of some
of the known particles, and means that the race to find new particles between the Tevatron and CERN's 27-kilometre-long
Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is due to start up later this year, enters new territory.
The Tevatron is scheduled
to run at full throttle until 2009, collecting data faster than ever before. By 2009, the LHC is expected to have enough data
to start searching for supersymmetry. "If we were to make a discovery before the LHC after all these years and billions of
dollars, that would be really amazing," says Conway.
Markus Schumacher of the University of Siegen in Germany, who works
on the ATLAS detector for the LHC, knows only too well that the Tevatron could find new particles with undisputed certainty
before the LHC. "There was always a race between the Tevatron and the LHC," he says. "It might well be that the Tevatron will
be the first collider to see something."
That something could be not just Higgs particles, but other supersymmetric partners
as well. Of course, it depends on whether next-to-minimal supersymmetry, with its modest fine-tuning, is the right description
of reality. In that model, the masses of some of the super-partners should be in the range of about 300 to 400 GeV. That puts
such particles in the sights of both the Tevatron and the LHC. Specifically, partners for the top quark and the gluon, namely
the stop and the gluino, would be up for grabs.
Sticking with the standard modelTomasso Dorigo of the University
of Padua in Italy has put his money where his mouth is. A believer in the standard model of particle physics, Dorigo has bet
his theorist friends a cool $1000 that it's the right description of reality. There's a small chance, however, that his own
experiment will lose him that bet.
Last week, Dorigo's team announced the results from the CDF experiment looking at how
Z bosons decay to b-quarks, a process described by the standard model of the universe. However, his team has seen, just as
John Conway's team did last month, a few anomalous events at a mass of about 160 gigaelectronvolts.
If this is indeed a
supersymmetric Higgs boson, then theory predicts the researchers should have recorded 100 such events based on the amount
of data they have collected. According to Dorigo, the possibility that they have already done so cannot be ruled out. "There
is an upward fluctuation of the data right at about that mass value, of the size one would expect from minimal supersymmetry,"
he says.
However, he still firmly believes that the signals his team has picked up are just noise in the data, and he's
far from conceding his bet. "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence," he says. "After thirty years of incredibly
precise confirmations of the standard model we need a huge signal of new physics before I get convinced there is something
beyond."
Tony B.:
This newest data/discovery about the Higgs
Boson aka the 'God-Particle' states, that there seems to be a 'resonance-blip' at an energy of about 160 GeV and as just one
of say 5 Higgs Bosons for a 'minimal supersymmetry'. One, the lowest form of the Higgs Boson is said to be about 110
GeV in the Standard Model. There is also a convergence of the Hb to an energy level of so 120 GeV from some other models.
Now the whole thing , according to Quantum
Relativity' about the Higgs Boson, is that IT IS NOT a particular particle, but relates to ALL particles in its 'scalar nature'
as a restmass inducer.
I have discussed the Higgs Boson many times before;
but would like here to show in a very simple analysis that the Higgs Boson MUST show a blip at the 160 GeV mark and due to
its nature as a 'polarity' neutraliser (a scalar particle has no charge and no spin, but can be made up of two opposite electric
charges and say two opposing chiralities of spin orientations.)
Without worrying about details, first consider the
following table which contains all the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics. The details are found
in the Planck-String transformations discussed elesewhere.
The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xmps/(ec)) modulated in (SNI/EMI=Cuberoot
of [Alpha]/[Alpha]), the intrisicic unified
Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x(ec)/(mpsxa<2/3>), where the (Cuberoot
of [Alpha]^2) is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).
Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the
IR-OR transition:
VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358
MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643
MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for
IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999
MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05
MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69
MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6
MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9
MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636
MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271
MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*);
(119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.
The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles; the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: po, p+, p-); the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies
the (KAON-FAMILY: Ko, K+, K-); the (CHARM-Mean)
defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY); the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U- Bottonium-FAMILY); the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY); the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the
(HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).
The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives (K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV*) and the
IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-] =0.52049 MeV*) as
the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in
the UFoQR.
The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (mc=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xmP)) and setting
(mc) as the basic
maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KKK)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+), one gets the basic nucleonic K-state of: m(no,p+)=939.642 MeV*).
Ok, now I'll print some excerpt for the more technically inclined reader regarding the Higgs Boson but
highlight the important relevant (bit wrt to this discovery of a 160 GeV Higgs Boson energy) at the end.
""Robert
Sceptico: "Indeed it does!
The
key is the electronic radius as upward scaling of the manifesting supermembrane.
The
Outer Leptonic Ring or OLR oscillates and defines the quark structure in its strangeness, its magic, its topness and its superness.
The
Inner Mesonic Ring or IMR also oscillates and sets the quarks in their downness, their bottomness, their daintyness and also their topness.
A
trisected kernel, the neutrinocore, geometrically defines the magnified singularity in its charm.
It
is an intricate structure; this Kernel K-Inner Ring IR-Outer Ring OR quantum geometry.
You
see, basically only two quarks are required to construct all restmass-induced particles.
We
term it the up-quark and the down-quark with a strange-quark forming the oscillating energetic resonance of the down-quark
in an energy differential between the IR and the OR.
The
revolution in particle physics was the realisation that all quarks are magnified superbranes, which have a mgnetopolic duality
in higher dimensional omnispace.
We
so describe intersecting wavefunctions in forms of sectorial mappings, using the idea of colour mixing known as the gluonic hadron chromaticity
of the strong nuclear interaction.
In
terms of unitary symmetry, 9 quarks are defined in the KKKIROR geometry of the revised Standard Model.
Kernel
K is the up-quark u and KIR is a Kernel K surrounded by a mesonic IR as down-quark d.
A
KOR or s-quark is just like a KIR with an leptonic OR replacing a mesonic IR in oscillation.
Because
KOR is basically the resonance of KIR, all KOR-based subatomic particles have higher energy than the superbraned particles who carry
a KIR substitution.
The
symmetry of the prespacetime wavefunctions defines the blueprints for the superbraned particles via 12 intersections of monopolic circuit-loops
of colour-magnetic electricity.
Those
current-knots, so to say, became magnetic monopoles fixed in energy as the superbrane of class IIB; its energy is exactly
(ec) kilogram units or 27,000 trillion electronic units, which are called Gigaelectronvolts or GeV.
Each
and every magnetic-current-knot or magnetic monopole has a KKKIROR geometry and so is a manifested supermembrane from the 11th dimension
of M-space.
This
potential materialisation then occurs within the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity or UFoQR and in accordance with the spacequanta set in a
fourfold repetition for the angular source wavelength, spanning the 12 monopolic intersection points as the linear radian extent of the UFoQR.
The
universal blueprint KKKIROR is then defined in gluonic chromaticity and links to the mechanism of the RestMass-Induction or HBRMI under the
agency of that template.
This
we term the Higgs Boson or HB, the 'Giver of Restmass'.
Logan
Antico: "How can the layperson make sense of the Higgs Boson, Robert; is there a more familiar analogy?"
Robert
Sceptico: "There is a similar particle almost universally known by High School graduates, Logan.
A
first derivative from the HB blueprint is the subatomic particle known as the Neutron with a dud or KIRKKIR quarkstructure, and rather different
from particle udd=KKIRKIR, because of an asymmetric alignment of the individual quarks along a defining magnetoaxis."
Logan Antico:
"Yes, the first particles manufactured in the Big bang furnace were the ylems or dineutrons as the nucleons forming the ylemic
protostars.
Their
radii depend solely on their temperature, ranging from so 1.2 trillion Kelvin at 114 seconds after the Big Bang to so 200 billion Kelvin at 1150 seconds
after timeinstantenuity, setting radioactive neutron decay into that time interval and forming protostar generations for magnetars, pulsars
and neutronstars
in later generations."
Robert Sceptico: "The KKIRKOR=uds particle is the superbrane known
as the Neutral Lambda (Lo) and it decays into a neutron (no) and a neutral
meson, called pion (po), or it transforms into a proton (p+) with
a negatively charged pion (p-) under the conservation laws of energy and momentum in their linear vand angular
propagations.
All
subatomic particles can be defined from the basic uds-blueprint of the KKIRKOR structure.
There
is a quark triplet containing the Super* S*=ss, the Top* t*=ds and the Dainty* D*=dd; complemented in a quark doublet of the Magic* m*=us
and the Bottom* b*=ud and completed in a quark singlet in the Charm* U*=uu.
The
Charm* is also known as the Double-Up, the Dainty* as the Double-Down and the Super* as the Double-Strange.
All
of the starred (*) quarks are diquarks, consisting of two of the basequarks u,d or s.
The
bottom-quark is also known as the beauty-quark and the top-quark is also the truth-quark.
The
quark singlet manifests in the charm-quark c=Uu(bar)=(uu)u(bar)=u(uu(bar)) and is so a resonance of the u-quark, not associating with the
IR-OR oscillation of d*s=s*d.
The
quark doublet manifests in the bottom-quark b=b*u(bar)=(ud)u(bar)=d(uu(bar)) as a d-quark resonance, the u-s or K-KOR oscillation
of the m-quark becoming suppressed in ud*s=s*du.
The
quark triplet manifests in the top-quark t=t*d(bar)=(ds)d(bar)=s(dd(bar)) as a s-quark resonance, the d-s or KIR-KOR oscillation
for the D- and S-quarks suppressed in ud*s=uds*.
The (bar)
denotes antiquarks, so that the antiup=up(bar) has a colourcharge of (-2/3) and both, the antidown and the antistrange have a charge of (+1/3), being made up of an antiK
of charge (-2/3) added to the +1 charge of the antiring of
the IMR or the OLR respectively."
Logan Antico: "So
where is the supersymmetry of the shadow particle in the setup
of the quarkian hierarchies in the quantum geometry of the HB blueprint
KKIRKOR?"
Robert Sceptico: "The supersymmetry enters because the KKIRKOR is scalar as the Higgs Boson, it doesn't quantum spin, but the lambda and the neutron do.
The
latter two are defined as baryons, but the lambda is a shortlived hyperon and the neutron is a longlived or stable nucleon, both with a quantum
spin of 1/2.
Superbranes
with halfintegral spin are called fermions and their supersymmetric partners of integral spin are the bosons.
So the great realisation in particle physics was the fact, that the Higgs Boson is ubiquitous;
it itself
is the bosonic supersymmetric partner for all the fermions, which include all the leptons associated with the rings and the neutrinos
and antineutrinos of the kernel.
The upper limit for the quark
energies is the Superdiquark S=(ss)d(bar), forming a particle called the Higgs/Chi (H/C)-resonance
with an energy mean of (1,194 GeV) in a quark structure SS(bar).
1/365th of a second into the cosmic
evolution sets the symmetry breaking between the electro
|
