SUMMARY: Since its existence was first theorized in the 1960s, scientists have been searching for the mysterious Higgs boson. This subatomic particle is believed to be responsible for mass, and would help explain why objects feel inertia and have momentum. Unfortunately, physicists were unable to find the particle in the 1990s using the world's largest atom smashers. A new estimate for the particle's mass from Berkeley Lab explains why it might have eluded discovery. Fortunately, CERN's new Large Hadron Collider, due to start up in 2007 should have the ability to find the Higgs particle at a heavier mass.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

I keep telling you people, it probably doesn't exist!

I found this site that has several very good explanations of the mathematics that gave rise to the Higgs Boson. Below is a breif quote from the paper written by Mary & Ian Butterworth and Doris & Vigdor Teplitz:

There are five one page explanations on that site...

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

John L,

Thank you for that link. Very interesting writing in all 5 that are there.
The only question I have is if the effect of moving throught the Higgs field is to attract others, then why is the effect strong enough to attract and move other particles, but not strong enough to drag them away completely from their position?

Or is it accepted in the theory that the field can 'bend but not break'?

__________________
'I don't know if I even have an aura, man. I just try to win.'
Tiger Woods

is there some sorta correlation the Higgs makes btwn. mass and charge and spin? If so, I'd like to know.

StarLab had asked in another Higgs thread how the Higgs was derived from the mathematics. I found that and linked to it, and copied the post here. I don't know the answers to your new questions...

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

If the Higgs existed, it would not be so heavy....it is supposed to be not only elementary, but subatomic, am I not right? Plus, why make mass into a fundamental force by assigning it a carrier? Would we do the same with spin and charge?

I had a read about that CERN particle accelerator in Europe, its has amazing power and is a real atom smasher. The Stats of this place will just have the ability to blow us out of the water, finishing this will take lots of time but the results could be great it could be like when we split the atom. They could have the chance to break into other dimensions of the universe you know?

Peter Canuck... I passed your question along to the research team at Langley, and here's what they had to say:

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

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 thge 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 doubled 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
Higgs boson: Glimpses of the God particle
Editorial: Higgs with a difference
Inside inflation: after the big bang
Moslem tilers were hundreds of years ahead of their time
Soap suds and cosmic secrets
Standard model shows the strain
If 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-partners
With 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 lepton
The 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 gluino
The 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 model
Tomasso 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.

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 electromagnetic- and weak nuclear interactions at a temperature of 3.4 quadrillion Kelvin and a bosonic particle energy of (298.5 GeV).

This is the Fermi Constant for the Weak Nuclear Interaction or WNI and can be considered a quasimass for the Higgs Boson.

This energy calculates as the Vortex-PE mean or VPE for the HB-Kernel induction for the SS(bar).



The VPE-K-mean for the tt(bar) resonance is (182.758 GeV) and the VPE-R(ing)mean is calculated as (38.882 GeV), the latter being contained in the former.

The mean for the top-antitop resonance is the mass for the neutral (Zo) WNI-weakon fieldagent in (91.38 GeV*=91.19 GeV).

Summing the VPE-K-means up to the Dainty quark state of the doube-down, then gives the energy for the (W+-) charged weakons in (80.64 GeV*=80.47 GeV) as the gauge field particles for the WNI.""



Tony B.:

Now for the simplicity.

The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.



So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottopmises and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.



As I have shown, the energy resonances of the Z-boson (uncharged) represents an 'average' or statistical mean value of the 'Top-Quark' and the Upper-Limit for the Higgs Boson is a similar 'Super-Quark' 'average' and as the weak interaction unification energy.



The hitherto postulated Higgs Boson mass of so 110 GeV is the Omicron-resonance, fully predicted from the table above (unique to Quantum Relativity).

Now the most fundamental way to generate the Higgs Boson as a 'weak interaction' gauge is through the coupling of two equal mass, but oppositely charged W-bosons (of whom the Z is the uncharged counterpart).

We have seen, that the W-mass is a summation of all the other quark-masses as kernel-Means from thge strangeness upwards to the truth-quark level.

So simply doubling the 80.47 GeV mass of the weak-interaction gauge boson must represent the basic form of the Higgs Boson and that is 160.9 GeV.

Simplicity indeed and just the way Quantum Relativity describes the creation of the Higgs Boson from even more fundamental templates of the so called 'gauges'. The Higgs Boson is massless but consists of two classical electron rings and a massless doubled neutrino kernel, and then emerges in the magnetocharge induction AS mass carrying gauges.

This massless neutrino kernel now crystallises our atomic solar system.


Hypersphere volumes and the mass of the Tau-neutrino

Consider the universe's thermodynamic expansion to proceed at an initializing time (and practically at lightspeed for the lightpath x=ct describing the hypersphere radii) to from a single spacetime quantum with a quantized toroidal volume 2π²rw³ and where rw is the characteristic wormhole radius for this basic building unit for a quantized universe (say in string parameters given in the Planck scale and its transformations).

At a time tG, say so 18.85 minutes later, the count of space time quanta can be said to be 9.677x10102 for a universal 'total hypersphere radius' of about rG=3.39x1011 meters and for a G-Hypersphere volume of so 7.69x1035cubic meters.

{This radius is about 2.3 Astronomical Units (AUs) and about the distance of the Asteroid Belt from the star Sol in a typical (our) solar system.}

This modelling of a mapping of the quantum-microscale onto the cosmological macroscale should now indicate the mapping of the wormhole scale onto the scale of the sun itself.

rw/RSun(i)=Re/rE for RSun(i)=rwrE/Re=1,971,030 meters. This gives an 'inner' solar core of diameter about 3.94x106 meters.


As the classical electron radius is quantized in the wormhole radius in the formulation Re=1010rw/360, rendering a finestructure for Planck's Constant as a 'superstring-parametric': h=rw/2Rec3; the 'outer' solar scale becomes RSun(o)=360RSun(i)=7.092x108 meters as the observed radius for the solar disk.

19 seconds later; a F-Hypersphere radius is about rF=3.45x1011 meters for a F-count of so 1.02x10103 spacetime quanta.
We also define an E-Hypersphere radius at rE=3.44x1014 meters and an E-count of so 10112 to circumscribe this 'solar system' in so 230 AU.

We so have 4 hypersphere volumes, based on the singularity-unit and magnified via spacetime quantization in the hyperspheres defined in counters G, F and E. We consider these counters as somehow fundamental to the universe's expansion, serving as boundary conditions in some manner. As counters, those googol-numbers can be said to be defined algorithmically and independent on mensuration physics of any kind.



The mapping of the atomic nucleus onto the thermodynamic universe of the hyperspheres

Should we consider the universe to follow some kind of architectural blueprint; then we might attempt to use our counters to be isomorphic (same form or shape) in a one-to-one mapping between the macrocosmos and the microcosmos. So we define a quantum geometry for the nucleus in the simplest atom, say Hydrogen. The hydrogenic nucleus is a single proton of quark-structure udu and which we assign a quantum geometric template of Kernel-InnerRing-OuterRing (K-IR-OR), say in a simple model of concentricity.
We set the up-quarks (u) to become the 'smeared out core' in say a tripartition uuu so allowing a substructure for the down-quark (d) to be u+InnerRing. A down-quark so is a unitary ring coupled to a kernel-quark. The proton's quark-content so can be rewritten and without loss of any of the properties associated with the quantum conservation laws; as proton-> udu->uuu+IR=KKK+IR. We may now label the InnerRing as Mesonic and the OuterRing as Leptonic.
The OuterRing is so definitive for the strange quark in quantum geometric terms: s=u+OR.
A neutron's quark content so becomes neutron=dud=KIR.K.KIR with a 'hyperon resonance' in the lambda=sud=KOR.K.KIR and so allowing the neutron's beta decay to proceed in disassociation from a nucleus (where protons and neutrons bind in meson exchange); i.e. in the form of 'free neutrons'. The neutron decays in the oscillation potential between the mesonic inner ring and the leptonic outer ring as the 'ground-energy' eigenstate.

There actually exist three uds-quark states which decay differently via strong, electromagnetic and weak decay rates in the uds (Sigmao Resonance); usd (Sigmao) and the sud (Lambdao) in increasing stability. This quantum geometry then indicates the behaviour of the triple-uds decay from first principles, whereas the contemporary standard model does not, considering the u-d-s quark eigenstates to be quantum geometrically undifferentiated.
The nuclear interactions, both strong and weak are confined in a 'Magnetic Asymptotic Confinement Limit' coinciding with the Classical Electron radius Re=ke²/mec² and in a scale of so 3 Fermi or 2.8x10-15 meters. At a distance further away from this scale, the nuclear interaction strength vanishes rapidly. The wavenature of the nucleus is given in the Compton-Radius Rc=h/2πmc with m the mass of the nucleus, say a proton; the latter so having Rc=2x10-16 meters or so 0.2 fermi.

The wave-matter (after de Broglie generalising wavespeed vdB from c in Rcc) then relates the classical electron radius as the 'confinement limit' to the Compton scale in the electromagnetic finestructure constant in Ree=Alpha.Rc.
The extension to the Hydrogen-Atom is obtained in the expression Re=Alpha².RBohr1 for the first Bohr-Radius as the 'ground-energy' of so 13.7 eV at a scale of so 10-11 to 10-10 meters (Angstroems).
These 'facts of measurements' of the standard models now allow our quantum geometric correspondences to assume cosmological significance in their isomorphic mapping. We denote the OuterRing as the classical electron radius and introduce the InnerRing as a mesonic scale contained within the geometry of the proton and all other elementary baryonic- and hadronic particles.
Firstly, we define a mean macro-mesonic radius as: rM=½(rF+rG)~ 3.42x1011 meters and set the macro-leptonic radius to rE=3.44x1014 meters.
Secondly, we map the macroscale onto the microscale, say in the simple proportionality relation, using
(de)capitalised symbols: Re/Rm=rE/rM.
We can so solve for the micro-mesonic scale Rm=Re.rM/rE ~ 2.76x10-18 meters.
So reducing the apparent measured 'size' of a proton in a factor about about 1000 gives the scale of the subnuclear mesonic interaction, say the strong interaction coupling by pions.


The Higgsian Scalar-Neutrino

The (anti)neutrinos are part of the electron mass in a decoupling process between the kernel and the rings. Neutrino mass is so not cosmologically significant and cannot be utilized in 'missing mass' models'.
We may define the kernel-scale as that of the singular spacetime-quantum unit itself, namely as wormhole radius rw=10-22/2π meters.

Before the decoupling between kernel and rings, the kernel-energy can be said to be strong-weakly coupled or unified to encompass the gauge-gluon of the strong interaction and the gauge-weakon of the weak interaction defined in a coupling between the OuterRing and the Kernel and bypassing the mesonic InnerRing.

So for matter, a W-Minus (weakon) must consist of a coupled lepton part, yet linking to the strong interaction via the kernel part. If now the colour-charge of the gluon transmutates into a 'neutrino-colour-charge'; then this decoupling will not only define the mechanics for the strong-weak nuclear unification coupling; but also the energy transformation of the gauge-colour charge into the gauge-lepton charge.

There are precisely 8 gluonic transitive energy permutation eigenstates between a 'radiative-additive' Planck energy in W(hite)=E=hf and an 'inertial-subtractive' Einstein energy in B(lack)=E=mc2, which describe the baryonic- and hyperonic 'quark-sectors' in: mc2=BBB, BBW, WBB, BWB, WBW, BWW, WWB and WWW=hf. The permutations are cyclic and not linearly commutative. For mesons (quark-antiquark eigenstates), the permutations are BB, BW, WB and WW in the SU(2) and SU(3) Unitary Symmetries.

So generally, we may state, that the gluon is unfied with a weakon before decoupling; this decoupling 'materialising' energy in the form of mass, namely the mass of the measured 'weak-interaction-bosons' of the standard model (W- for charged matter; W+ for charged antimatter and Zo for neutral mass-currents say).


Experiment shows, that a W- decays into spin-aligned electron-antineutrino or muon-antineutrino or tauon-antineutrino pairings under the conservation laws for momentum and energy.
So, using our quantum geometry, we realise, that the weakly decoupled electron must represent the OuterRing, and just as shown in the analysis of QED (Quantum-Electro-Dynamics). Then it can be inferred, that the Electron's Antineutrino represents a transformed and materialised gluon via its colourcharge, now decoupled from the kernel.

Then the OuterRing contracts (say along its magnetoaxis defining its asymptotic confinement); in effect 'shrinking the electron' in its inertial and charge- properties to its experimentally measured 'point-particle-size'. Here we define this process as a mapping between the Electronic wavelength 2πRe and the wormhole perimeter λw=2πrw.

But in this process of the 'shrinking' classical electron radius towards the gluonic kernel (say); the mesonic ring will be encountered and it is there, that any mass-inductions should occur to differentiate a massless lepton gauge-eigenstate from that manifested by the weakon precursors.
{Note: Here the W- inducing a lefthanded neutron to decay weakly into a lefthanded proton, a lefthanded electron and a righthanded antineutrino. Only lefthanded particles decay weakly in CP-parity-symmetry violation, effected by neutrino-gauge definitions from first principles}.

This so defines a neutrino-oscillation potential at the InnerRing-Boundary. Using our proportions and assigning any neutrino-masses mυ as part of the electronmass me, gives the following proportionality as the mass eigenvalue of the Tau-neutrino:

mυ=meλw.rE/(2πrMRe) ~ 5.4x10-36 kg or 3.0 eV.

So we have derived, from first principles, a (anti)neutrinomass eigenstate of 3 eV.

This confirms the Mainz, Germany Result as the upper limit for neutrino masses resulting from ordinary Beta-Decay and indicates the importance of the primordial beta-decay for the cosmogenesis and the isomorphic scale mappings stated above.

The hypersphere intersection of the G- and F-count of the thermodynamic expansion of the mass-parametric universe so induces a neutrino-mass of 3 eV at the 2.76x10-18 meter marker.

The more precise G-F differential in terms of eigenenergy is 0.052 eV as the mass-eigenvalue for the Higgs-(Anti)neutrino (which is scalar of 0-spin and constituent of the so called Higgs Boson as the kernel-Eigenstate). This has been experimentally verified in the Super-Kamiokande (Japan) neutrino experiments published in 1998 and in subsequent neutrino experiments around the globe, say Sudbury, KamLAND, Dubna, MinibooNE and MINOS.
This Higgs-Neutrino-Induction is 'twinned' meaning that this energy can be related to the energy of so termed 'slow- or thermal neutrons' in a coupled energy of so twice 0.0253 eV for a thermal equilibrium at so 20° Celsius and a rms-standard-speed of so 2200 m/s from the Maxwell statistical distributions for the kinematics.

Neutrinomasses

The Electron-(Anti)Neutrino is massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate.
The Muon-(Anti)Neutrino is also massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate.
The Tauon-(Anti)Neutrino is not massless with inertial eigenstate meaned at 3.0 eV as a characteristic energy level.
The weakon kernel-eigenstates are 'squared' or doubled (2x2=2+2) in comparison with the gluonic-eigenstate (one can denote the colourcharges as (R²G²B²)[½] and as (RGB)[1] respectively say and with the [] bracket denoting gauge-spin and RGB meaning colours Red-Green-Blue).

The scalar Higgs-(Anti)Neutrino becomes then defined in: (R4G4B4)[0].

The twinned neutrino state so becomes MANIFESTED in a coupling of the scalar Higgs-Neutrino with a massless base neutrino in a (R6G6B6)[0+½]) mass-induction template.
The Higgs-Neutrino is bosonic and so not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle; but quantized in the form of the FG-differential of the 0.052 Higgs-Restmass-Induction.
Subsequently all experimentally observed neutrino-oscillations should show a stepwise energy induction in units of the Higgs-neutrino mass of 0.052 eV. This was the case in the Super-Kamiokande experiments; and which was interpreted as a mass-differential between the muonic and tauonic neutrinoic forms.

mνhiggs=meλw.rE/(2πrMRe){1/rG-1/rF} ~ 9.3x10-38 kg or 0.052 eV.




Next we interpret this scalar (or sterile) Double-Higgs (anti)neutrino as a majoron and lose the distinction between antineutrino and neutrino eigenstates.

We can only do this in the case of the Zo decay pattern, which engage the boson spin of the Zo as a superposition of two antineutrinos for the matter case and the superposition of two neutrinos in the antimatter case from first principles.

So the Zo IS a Majorana particle, which merges the templates of two antineutrinos say and SPININDUCES the Higgs-Antineutrino.

And where does this occur? It occurs at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring Boundary previously determined at the 2.776x10^-18 meter marker.

This marker so specifies the Zo Boson energy level explicitely as an upper boundary relative to the displacement scale set for the kernel at the wormhole radius rw=λw /2π and the classical electron radius as the limit for the nuclear interaction scale at 3 fermis in: Re=Rcompton.Alpha.

So the particle masses of the standard model in QED and QCD become Compton-Masses, which are HIGGS-MASSINDUCED at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring (MIR) marker at Rm=2.776x10^-18 meters.

The Compton masses are directly obtained from E=hf=mc^2=hc/λ an