Book

I have this dream that there will be a sort of Sherlock Holmes event. Someone will look at this great pyramid of evidence that is building up and exclaim, ʻYes, Watson, I think I see it. By Jove, that must be it.” – James Peebles                                                                                                                                                                    

 

Summary

The carriers of the weak force are the Zº, W+, and W- bosons, but they are so massive that they decay very quickly, and cannot be detected, directly. Momentum and charge analysis of their secondary and/or tertiary decay products led to the discovery of the W± bosons. In the Standard Model of Particle Physics, W± bosons are distinct, because they are the only massive bosons of identical mass but opposite charge. This leads us to ask, are the W± bosons primary particles or the secondary decay products of some primary progenitor particle?

The answer may lie in replacing both charged W± bosons, with one uncharged Wº boson, in the Periodic Table of the Baryons, because this not only reconciles zero charge as a property that is common to all elementary bosons, it also predicts, within a 1.5% margin of error: that a 171 GeV energy well exists between the 4.5 GeV bottom quark and the 175.5 GeV top quark; that such energy well has an 85.5 GeV bottom that is located between the putative 81 GeV Wº boson and the 90 GeV Zº boson; that the proton and neutron have more massive counterparts in the second and third families of matter; and that all recognized and proposed baryons bear a rest mass relationship to each other and to all fundamental particles- e.g., not only does the rest mass of the third family equivalent of the first family proton (the putative troton), equal the sum of the rest masses of all non scalar fundamental particles (replacing the putative Wº for both W± bosons), but also the rest masses of all fundamental particles, which are less massive than the bottom quark, sum to the rest mass of the bottom quark, and the rest masses of all baryons or fundamental particles, which are more massive than the bottom quark (including the scalar Higgs boson), are divisible by the rest mass of the bottom quark.

Abstract

The Periodic Table of the Baryons consists of raw data, which is assembled in a coherent fashion, is self-explanatory, and has an accompanying Table Worksheet, which shows how the terms of such Table were defined, the assumptions upon which it was based, and manner in which the conclusions were derived from those assumptions.

Worksheet 

Assumption one: Every first family composite particle has a more massive counterpart in the second and third families of matter. For example, there exists a second family baryonic equivalent of the first family neutron (two down quarks and one up quark), which we shall call the seutron (two strange quarks and one charm quark), a third family baryonic equivalent of the first family neutron and the putative second family seutron, which we shall call the beutron (two bottom quarks and one top quark), and so on, for all postulated second and third family baryons that are listed in the PERIODIC TABLE OF THE BARYONS.

Step 1: Add the rest masses of two top quarks (175.5 GeV + 175.5 GeV) and one bottom quark (4.5 GeV) and they total 355.5 GeV, the rest mass of the third family baryonic equivalent of the first family proton, which we shall call the troton.

Assumption two: The W+ weak boson and the W- weak boson are the secondary decay products of a progenitor primary particle, which we shall call the W° boson, with a single mass of 81 GeV, and an electromagnetic charge of zero, until such time as the putative W° decays and the nought charge becomes expressed as either plus one (W+) or minus one (W-).

Step 2: Subtract the rest mass of the putative W° boson (81 GeV) from the rest mass total of all known non-scalar fundamental particles, including the W+ and the W- bosons (436.5 GeV), and the total is again 355.5 GeV, the rest mass of the putative troton.

Step 3: Add the rest mass of the putative beutron (184.5 GeV) to the rest masses of the Zº boson (90 GeV) and the putative W° boson (81 GeV) and the total is again 355.5 GeV, the rest mass of the putative troton.

Assumption three: 85.5 GeV represents the stable bottom of a 171 GeV mass/energy well for all massive non-scalar fundamental particles, whereby massive fundamental particle (quark/lepton/weak boson) formation favors fusion below 85.5 GeV, and fission above 85.5 GeV (similar to the relationship between iron 56 and the first family table of the elements).

Step 4: Subtract the rest mass of the Zº boson (90 GeV) from the rest mass of the top quark (175.5 GeV) and the result is 85.5 GeV.

Step 5: Add the rest mass of the putative W° boson (81 GeV) to the rest mass of the bottom quark (4.5 GeV) and the result is again 85.5 GeV.

Step 6: Subtract the rest mass of the bottom quark (4.5 GeV) from the rest mass of the Zº boson (90 GeV) and the result is again 85.5 GeV.

Step 7: Add the rest mass obtained in step 4 (85.5 GeV) to that obtained in step 5 (85.5 GeV) and the total is 171 GeV, which we shall call the Third Family Energy Well.

Assumption four: The Periodic Table of the (first family) Elements can be replicated, in the (proposed) Periodic Table of the (second family) Elements, by transposing all properties of the corresponding quarks from the first family of matter, save mass, to those of the second family of matter (the properties of first family elements are not necessarily replicated in putative second family elements).

Assumption five: The rest masses of all known non-scalar fundamental particles that are less massive than the bottom quark, sum to the rest mass of the bottom quark, and the rest masses of all baryons and fundamental particles that are more massive than the bottom quark, including the scalar Higgs boson, are divisible by the rest mass of the bottom quark.

Preface

The title, The Case of the Missing Siblings, derives from the above quote of James Peebles. Recent telescope and particle accelerator data lend credence to several phenomena that are predicted in this book. As Martin White, of the European Space Agency, mused, “We absolutely know a crime was committed, but we’re kind of stuck until Sherlock Holmes comes along and tells us what’s going on (March 30, 2013, NewScientist, page 8).” If discovery is your game, the game is afoot!

The nature of dark matter/energy is among the hottest current topics of inquiry, but no one seems to ask why there are three families of matter. This is the first book to demonstrate that these questions are related, and it is bifurcated, in order to answer them. The basic premise of this book is that mass and energy transition into and out of the first family of matter, via the second and third families. The reader sets out upon a journey of discovery, along a path of revelation that explores how and why this transition unfolds, as the universe evolves.

Part I explores implications of the propositions: that there are second and third family counterparts of the first family proton and neutron; that such baryons exist to enable mass and energy to transition into, and out of the first family; and that the relative masses of such baryons suggest the presence of an energy well between the bottom and top quarks, and the existence of a progenitor W° boson.

Part II explains the Casimir plate vacuum energy measurements, and explores ramifications of the proposition that dark matter/energy is really virtual matter/vacuum energy. The proposed Modified Archimedes Principle (MAP) holds that “a massive body, immersed in space, displaces a volume of that space, centered on such body, which contains an amount of vacuum energy that is equal to the mass of such body, and is inversely proportional to the distance from such body”. According to MAP, a focal mass induces, not only the attractive gravitational force, but also a repellent displacement force. Analogous to electromagnetic induction, gravitodisplacement induction (proposed) is caused by the outward displacement of the mass equivalent vacuum energy that surrounds any massive body, even as energy equivalent mass is gravitationally attracted toward such massive body. Since the displacement force is equal and opposite to the gravitational force, vacuum energy is extremely attenuated near the surface of a massive body, which is a proven fact of Casimir plate experiments, while the remaining vacuum energy is displaced, and exponentially concentrated, in a distant torus that surrounds that same body, which is a proven fact of observed galactic stellar movements. This bears upon the related problems of: sigma; galactic halos; the excess of galaxy clusters; the missing dwarf galaxies; the stellar deficit in spiral galactic discs; the fabric of space-time; the large/small scale structures of the universe; the structure of voids; the Axis of Evil; the variable acceleration of the expanding universe; the density of the universe a/k/a omega; and the cosmological constant a/k/a lambda.

The reader is challenged to read the following Periodic Table of Fundamental Particles (page 3) and its accompanying Worksheet (page 4), and if not entirely convinced of the findings and reasoning, to go no further. However, if intrigued, the reader is invited to finish the book.

“The Case of the Missing Siblings”

The book is available upon written request

3 Comments

  1. Your work surpasses so many other articles I’ve seen on the Internet. You are very talented at what you do and I hope you continue.

  2. Interesting rmuours, indeed, and I am confidentthe Higgs will be found in the range 122-132 GeV, havingpredicted its mass together with the top quark massin a composite model, before either top or Higgs weredetected. But I’ld point out there were similar rmuoursof an excess in the b anti-b channel indicating a Higgsin the range of 130-140 GeV just a couple of months back(personal communication from W. Marciano). It was a similardeal, a couple of sigma each in CMS and Atlas, which addedto a bit more than 3 sigma. It went away of course.My last look at the 2 gamma data, with abouthalf of the total data set analysed showed points aboveand below the theoretical continuum, and nosign of a bump whatever. The SM Higgs width at thismass is so small that I don’t even remember the numberbut I believe it’s on the order of 1 MeV. So in this casethe width of any bump in the 2 gamma mass spectrumwill be determined by detector resolution, on the orderof 5 GeV. There was an extra factor of two availablein the integrated flux not analysed at that time, butthat only gives 40% better resolution of any bumpat 125GeV. So I can’t believe this will be conclusive.A SM Higgs this light just escapes the vacuumstability and metastibility (due to finite temperatureeffects in the early universe) if new physics onlyappears near the Planck scale. So it’s premature for Kane and the supersymmetriciansto be rejoicing, I think. They should rather be worryingabout the absence of supersymmetry at 95% confidencelevel, below about 1 TeV. Exciting times! about 50%

  3. Well I guess now that I’m out of aecdamia, I can comment without stepping on anyones toes as I’ve had not direct contact with experimenters working in the field in 10 years!Anyway the photon-photon channel is interesting, because only spin 0 particles can decay into two photons. So if a bump is seen in the photon photon mass then it must be some kind of spin 0 particle, e.g. the Higgs.So its just how big is the bump over the photon photon background. Alass don’t have the code I once had, so can’t do some simple calcuations of the various cross sections. Nice thing is though that for signals like this the significance of results builds quickly. So its at 3 sd now give it another 6 months or so (or rather the next run), and it should be a very significant signal then.Interesting though to hear about my PhD subject coming back to life

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.