Lubos told that there is direct evidence for Z' boson now: earlier the evidence was only indirect: breaking of universality and anomaly in angle distribution in B meson decays. Z' bump has mass around 3 TeV. TGD predicts 2.94 TeV mass for second generation Z breaking universality. The decay width by direct scaling would be .08 TeV and is is larger than deviation .06 TeV from 3 TeV. Lubos reported half year ago about excess at 2.9 GeV which is also consistent with TGD prediction.
Lubos tells also about 3 sigma bump at 1.650 TeV assigned to Kaluza-Klein graviton in the search for Higgs pairs hh decaying to bbbar+ bbbar. Kaluza-Klein gravitons are rather exotic creatures and in absence of any other support for superstring model they are not the first candidate coming into my mind. I do not know how strong the evidence for spin 2 is but I dare to consider the possibility of spin 1 and ask whether M89 hadronic physics could allow an identification for this bump.
- Very naively scaled up J/Psi of M107 hadron physics having spin J=1 and mass equal to 3.1 GeV would have mass 1.585 TeV: error is about 4 per cent. The effective action would be based on gradient coupling similar in form to Zhh coupling. The decays via hh → bbbar+bbbar could take place also now.
- This scaling might be too naive: the quarks of M89 might be same as those of ordinary hadron physics and only the color magnetic energy would be scaled up by factor 512. c quark mass is equal 1.29 GeV so that the magnetic energy of ordinary J/Psi would be equal to .52 GeV. If so, M89 version of J/Psi would have mass of only 269 GeV. Lubos tells also about evidence for a 2 sigma bump at 280 GeV identified as CP odd Higgs - this identification of course reflects the dream of Lubos about standard SUSY at LHC energies. However, the scaling of eta meson mass 547.8 MeV by 512 gives 280.4 GeV so that the interpretation as eta meson proposed already earlier is convincing. The naive scaling might be the correct thing to do also for mesons containing heavier quarks.
Colleagues have realized that history is in making. I read from popular article that theoreticians left their ongoing projects and have started to study 750 GeV bump and certainly also other bumps. Ellis talked already about entire new physics. TGD message has gone through! But no one mentions TGD although all is published in Huping Hu's journals and in Research Gate! No need for this in the recent science community based on ethics of brutal opportunism: steal, lie, betray as hippies expressed it.
See the article Indications for the new physics predicted by TGD and chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I.
For a summary of earlier postings see Links to the latest progress in TGD.
3 comments:
I received the email below as a comment to this posting. For some reason it was not as a comment however. So that I take freedom to add it here and make a short comment.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Direct evidence for Z' a la TGD and M89 J/Psi":
Dear Dr. Pitkänen,
in February of this year, an English translation of Illobrand von Ludwiger's book on the physics of Burkhard Heim was completed and made available online. Since it seems to us that your own TGD theory has some things in common with Heim's largely unknown contributions, and that you would be in a position to understand and evaluate his ideas, we here attach links to some relevant .PDF files, should you be interested in perusing them:
http://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/I-v-Ludwiger-The-New-Worldview-of-the-Physicist-Burkhard-Heim-160321.pdf
http://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Selected_Results.pdf
http://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf
Best regards,
ProtonMail, LHC, CERN, Switzerland.
Comment to the work of Heim and followers. I have commented already earlier the metric aspects of the theory in some other context.
The idea is to modify Einstein's metric theory of gravity and generalize it by introducing 3 metrics which somehow would give rise to all interactions. I cannot comment on this.
The basic starting point is a map M^4-->M^8-> M^4 which is claimed to give curved space-time metric. The formulas used give however by chain rule just the flat metric so that the outcome is totally trivial. It is very tragic that the theory fails already in its first formula. It is not much use to continue further.
The following links gives detailed formulas about the failure:
http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html .
%%%%
Heim has done also mass calculations. I must admit that I do not understand them at all. He does not use standard approaches - usually strongly based on symmetries.
Anonymous mentions the resemblances between TGD and Heim’s theory.
Resemblance of Heim's geometric theory with TGD is only apparent and introduce 3 separate metrics. This looks to me horribly ugly and yields only the flat metric after all. Heim and followers assume 6 (8- or even 12-D) space-time in Kaluza-Klein spirit.
In TGD space-time is 4-D surface in 8-D imbedding space: a generalization of string world sheet in 10-D space if one wants something familiar to start with. TGD relies on induced sub-manifold geometry and induced spinor structure allowing to geometrize elecroweak interactions. Color fields are geometrized classically as something analogous to Kaluza-Klein fields. At quantum level particles correspond to "space-time quanta": topological inhomogenities in space-time.
Induction is completely standard mathematical notion about which theoretical physicists have however managed to remain essentially ignorant for some mysterious-to-me reason. Maybe the messenger has been wrong;-).
%%%%%%
Concerning mass calculations of Heim. As I already mentioned, I don’t understand how the mass formulas emerge because there are no clearly formulated principles. In TGD a generalization of super-conformal symmetries and p-adic thermodynamics are used. Apart from p-adic generalization the thermodynamics and p-adic length scale hypothesis: p= about 2^k, k integer - having now justification at the level of basic principles - the approach is rather conservative at formal level.
The errors are few per cent after k has been chosen. The convergence of series in powers of p-adic prime p is extremely fast: 2 non-trivial lowest orders give practically exact results since the p-adic primes involved are so large: M_127=2^127-1 =about 10^38 for electron. Therefore the errors are essentially due to the inaccuracy of physical assumptions.
Unfortunately, the success has been used to label the calculations as numerology or fitting although the results are exponentially sensitive to the choice of integer k in the p-adic prime p=about 2^k! The basic problem has been the considerable mathematical ignorance of colleagues and maybe also too strong desire to see me as a crackpot.
Post a Comment