archived as
(also …Pitkanen_60.pdf) =>doc pdf URL-doc URL-pdf
more from Matti Pitkänen is on the /Pitkanen.htm page at doc pdf URL
note: because important websites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow", the following was archived from on 03/08/2011. This is NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned website. Indeed, the reader should only read this back-up copy if the updated original cannot be found at the original author's site.
more about the strange asymmetry in t-tbar production
Dr. Matti Pitkänen
March 4, 2011
Postal address:
Köydenpunojankatu 2 D 11
10940, Hanko, Finland
E-mail:
URL-address:
(former address:)
"Blog" forum:
from the "Comments" section following the posting essay:
1. At 8:06 PM, donkerheid said...
There is no Higgs-boson at all in your latest formulation of TGD?
2. At 12:23 AM, Matti Pitkanen said...
Higgs bosons are there. But *all* of them are eaten by gauge bosons. In the Standard Model, only one Higgsi component remains since the photon remains massless. The reason is that photon and gluons also as well as the graviton should have small mass by twistorial approach to TGD based on Zero Energy Ontology and bosonic emergence. This is required if one accepts the identification of gauge bosons as bound states of massless fermions and antifermions.
The disappearance of the Higgs means that the hierarchy problem caused by the instability of Higgs mass to increase by radiative corrections and thought to be solved by SUSY disappears. The recent results mean that in MSSM, SUSY does not resolve this problem anymore and fine-tuning is needed (and probably even this is not enough).
Note, however, that the superpartner of Higgs remains in the spectrum in TGD. Note also that the Higgs is only part of the massivation mechanism and Higgs vacuum expectation value is not involved with it.
In my view, MSSM-type SUSY is now practically dead. Many specialists believe that we know the fate of MSSM SUSY with certainty within year. It is interesting to see how long it takes time for TGD-based approach to be taken seriously.
The situation is extremely frustrating for those who have had Nobel dreams. The proponents of MSSM SUSY and stringy SUSY (which can be anything) will not give up easily. The proponents of M-theory are indeed rapidly changing their predictions as one might have guessed;-).
Sad. This situation might have been avoided if the power hegemony of theoretical would have allowed the communication of TGD. In the frontier of Theoretical Physics, 28 years with a total neglect of a bottleneck idea can have fatal consequences.
3. At 6:47 AM, Ulla said...
Living matter is hard to explain without supersymmetry. And the interesting fact is that Life is based on Carbon (that can act as a boson). This is maybe an important notion. In this way, the Carbon can be linked to solitons and even light.
So Higgs can be searched also there :) But it will not be found there because the theory behind a SINGULAR Higgs is wrong?
In fact, the duality is found long ago. So let's study LIFE and CARBON. And water.
4. At 7:11 AM, donkerheid said...
You earlier predicted the mass of the Higgs to be 89 and 129 GeV. Does this still hold? I guess if Higgs particles are only "eaten", then they could be created in some way. Is this right?
I can only guess how frustrating it can be to be neglected and suppressed for decades. Still, this is the sure sign of really good works. ;-)
I think, however, that Big Science is already dying and shall crumble down unavoidably. Of course, if Lubosh for instance happened to read this (or someone else with the same mindset), they might burst out laughing and wonder how idiotic some people can be to say this. You could never explain this to them.
Everything is the other way round. This has become my philosophy. :)
Everything is the other way round on spaceship Earth. If only I knew why. :)
5. At 8:59 PM, Matti Pitkanen said...
If the Higgs exists (I do not want to bet that it is "eaten" bya photon although this is more-or-less a "must"), these are the values of mass suggested by p-adic mass scale hypothesis. They differ by sqrt(2). Mass of about 89 GeV is actually consistent with the assumption that intermediate gauge bosons eat Higgs components (80 GeV is W boson mass and 90 GeV is Z mass).
The recent situation in Theoretical Physics (and presumably in Science in general) is the outcome of many simultaneous trends.
The birth of Big Science meant the end of the era of individuals and therefore also end of the flow of really new ideas. To a high extent, Science became career-building and a natural selection began to work selecting the most arrogant and determined egos. Thus leaving no room for dreamers. Remarkably, my blood enemy in Finnish academic circles accused me of "dreaming" and his motto "No Nonsense" has gained a wide acceptance in Finnish academic circles;-)!
The extreme technicalization and overvaluation of technical calculations strongly favoring left-brainers able to do long calculations who are also completely incapable of holistic thinking. This explains why we have spent 3 decades developing theories which were based on a long list of ad hoc physical assumptions. Nature has tried to tell all the time that many of these assumptions might be wrong but in vain. We should have been also listening to the dreamers.
Extreme specialization which is not necessary anymore since the Internet supports a renaissance-type approach to Science. Theoretical physicists should and could be keenly aware about problems of Biology and be interested in Neuroscience and Consciousness. But there are very few places where this is possible (and Finland does not belong to them!).
Big Science means also optimization to extreme. Not only to the production of articles in respected publications but also the production of highly-standardized young researchers. The young brain in the Academic assembly line is selected already during the first-or-second student year and is not allowed to waste a single minute to anything except single goal. To become a PhD and a member of a group applying a particular method. This is an excellent method for producing a complete idiot!
6. At 1:39 AM, Ulla said...
"New Tight SUSY Exclusion From ATLAS" by Tommaso Dorigo.
I am actually convinced that SUSY is not there to be found. So I am prepared to see more-and-more of the parameter space being eaten up by experimental searches at the LHC.
The game will more-or-less go as follows. CMS excludes some region; ATLAS then excludes a bit more; then CMS takes revenge and extends the exclusion region with an improved analysis; then ATLAS does it; ….
This sort of game has been going on for quite a while at the Tevatron. And now that the players have changed, the rules remain the same.
7. At 5:20 AM, Matti Pitkänen said...
It is frustrating that SUSY and MSSM are so often equated (even by Tommaso who should know). SUSY is something much more general. MSSM is just one particular realization(which looks now very non-probable).
The new physics is unavoidable. But it is not the "desired" new physics. Personally, I believe that SUSY in sense of string theories is wrong. In the TGD realization, Majorana spinors are not needed. A purely geometric mechanism of SUSY breaking involving no free parameters replaces the incredibly ugly ad hoc mechanism based on tinkering with superpotentials. The right-handed neutrino (the blind spot of the Standard Model) allows us to develop the correct view about SUSY. With a little bit of physical thinking, this should have also been understood by others than me long ago.
LHC is a welcome and healthy blow to the arrogant egos of colleagues. I remember one Finnish particle physicist explaining how the articles for all options about what can be found at LHC have been already written and only some numerical values need to be substituted before sending the article to the review after the data has been gathered and analyzed. If Physics were as straightforward as this only professors would be needed to do it;-).
[note: the essay to which the above Comments are related is at => ]
"More about the strange asymmetry in t-tbar production"
Jester reports new data about the strange top-pair forward-backward asymmetry. He talked already earlier about this anomaly and I discussed it the earlier posting which I have updated to include the newest findings.
For top pairs with invariant mass above 450 GeV, the asymmetry is claimed by CDF to be stunningly large 48±-11 percent. 3 times more often top quarks produced in q-qbar annihilation prefer to move in the direction of q. If true, this would favor color octet excitations of Z0as the most natural explanation since the asymmetry would be not only due to the interference of vector and axial vector exchanges but also due to the inherent parity breaking of colored Z0 couplings.
The effect would provide further support for the identification of color quantum numbers in terms of color partial waves rather than as spin like quantum numbers. The earlier support comes from the evidence for colored excitations of leptons.
Addition: After a badly-slept night, I have come to new thoughts about the possible explanation of the effect. What is so weird (really weird when one begins to think the numbers!) that the outgoing top quark (t) emembers the direction of motion of quark q before annihilation to intermediate gluon which it should by the basic definition of annihilation diagram. For any exchange diagram the situation would be totally different.
Consider only Coulomb scattering! The quark q of the first proton would scatter from the quark of the second proton and transform to top quark in the scattering and keep its direction of motion in good approximation since small angle exchanges dominate due to the propagator factor. Flavor-changing exchange diagrams are not possible, however, in the Standard Model world since the only flavor changing are charged weak currents and their contribution is negligible.
In the new physics inspired by TGD, the situation is totally different! The identification of family replication phenomenon in terms of genus of the wormhole throats (see this) predicts that family replication corresponds to a dynamical SU(3) symmetry with gauge bosons belonging to the octet and singlet representations. Ordinary gauge bosons would also correspond (besides the familiar singlet representation) to exotic octet representation for which the exchanges induce neutral flavor-changing currents in the case of gluons and neutral weak bosons and charge-changing ones in the case of charged gauge bosons. The exchanges of the octet representation for gluons would explain the anomaly! Also, electroweak octet could of course contribute.
What is fantastic is that LHC will soon allow us to decide whether this explanation is correct!
Addition:The situation is getting really hot in the frontier of particle physics and open censorship is always the last tool when the truth is about to be revealed. My comment to Jester's blog containing the above message was censoredout.
Lubos immediately represented in this blog the same idea about flavor-changing currents but did not censor out my comment. I greatly appreciate the intellectual honesty of Lubos. It is an extremely rare virtue in the recent day Big Science where misuse of professional authority takes place routinely. Similar censorship in Resonaances was used 2 years ago when the CDF anomaly suggesting further existence of color excited states of leptons (tau at that time). This is a battle between David and Goliath. And Goliath uses all the dirty tricks it can invent. What makes me happy is that I know the outcome in this kind of battles;-).
I attach the second attempt to communicate to Resonaances. If you are quick enough, you might be able to see it. Here it is …
Second try after censoring out of the first one. The reason cannot be related to content since after my posting, Lubos also proposed flavor-changing neutral currents;-). It seems that situation is getting too hot to allow communication of TGD.
Flavor-changing neural color and EW currents is one of the basic predictions of TGD and is due to the topological explanation of family replication phenomenon. This would be the first direct experimentalevidence for TGD view about family replication (besides the dramatic indirect evidence provided by the success of p-adic mass calculations). See the blog posting and also the earlier posting.
if on the Internet, Press <BACK> on your browser to return to the previous page (or go to
else if accessing these files from the CD in a MS-Word session, simply <CLOSE> this file's window-session; the previous window-session should still remain 'active'
1