Wrong Assumption: E8 Cannot Unify Fermions and Bosons. Useful Truth: F4 and E8 Lie Algebras Have Both Commutator and AntiCommutator Structure by Frank Dodd Smith

Frank

Are you familiar with preprint:Identification of the 125 GeV Resonance as a Pseudoscalar Quarkonium Meson? http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6015

Yuri,

thanks for the reference to the recent paper at arXiv 1207.6015 by Moffatt that proposes to identify the 125 GeV LHC observation as a quark-based meson pseudoscalar.

Moffat also has an even more recent version 5 of arXiv 1204.4702 in which he says

"... We conjecture that a 125 GeV resonance ... composed of a quark-antiquark state may have been observed at the LHC ...".

I had earlier made a similar proposal in papers such as viXra 1203.0027

but Moffatt seems to have been unaware of my efforts because he makes no reference to my work.

However,

in light of the 2012 LHC data released around July 2012,

I think that the 125 GeV observation is most likely the Higgs and not such a pseudoscalar meson.

Prior to that, based on LHC data through 2011, there were two digamma bumps:

around 125 GeV (a cross section somewhat higher than Higgs expectation)

and

around 137 GeV (a cross section somwhat lower than Higgs expectation).

My earlier proposal was that

a Higgs was around 137 GeV

and

a pseudoscalar meson was around 125 GeV.

When the 2012 LHC observations were announced in July 2012

the new data showed in both CMS and ATLAS that the 137 digamma bump had gone away (probably a statistical fluctuation) so that

only the 125 GeV digamma bump remained.

My view now is that the Standard Model shows that a Higgs necessarily exists,

while it is not necessary that such a pseudoscalar meson exits,

so

since the LHC sees only one digamma bump (the one around 25 GeV)

it is almost certainly the Higgs and not a pseudoscalar meson.

Of course, if the 137 GeV digamma bump should reappear in the LHC observations for the second half of 2012, then my pseudoscalar meson (and Moffat's) might again become a possibility

but

I do not expect that to happen.

Tony

Frank

Could you please read my essay?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Tony

See all my answers to you

Tony

My phenomenon 18 degrees can help you to confirm your calculations.

18x7=126

18x11=198

18x14=252

18x18=324 See http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/conformal-standard-model-and-second.html#more

I sending to you Frank Wilczek's 3 keen articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

Dear Tony,

Interesting essay. Regarding the spin-statistics theorem, have you looked at Paul O'Hara's essay about the Pauli exclusion principle and spin statistics? I wonder if this has any bearing on your research program.

Also, I am not quite sure what the triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions results you cite would imply... you say that it doesn't require superpartners of the type predicted by certain versions of string theory and unseen by the LHC. Does it relate bosons and fermions already appearing in the standard model?

Finally, you might like my essay here, though it's about a different area of research. Take care,

Ben Dribus

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Ben, yes my triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions does relate bosons and fermions already appearing in the standard model in this way:

Bosons = 16 generators for Conformal U(2,2) producing MacDowell-Mansouri Gravity plus 12 generators for the Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)

for a total of 28.

Fermions = 8 first-generation particles and 8 first-generation antiparticles

antisymmetric pairs of which produce the 8/\8 = 28 bosons described above.

(Note that the 8 particles are electron, red up quark, green up quark, blue up quark, neutrino, red down quark, green down quark, and blue down quark.)

Sergey, thanks for the information about rankings but I am not interested in trying to game the system to get higher rating. I do not view this "essay contest" as a competitive race but as a place to put ideas that people might find interesting. Therefore, I do not really care about ratings but am content with the fact that my essay is in a place where it might be read by people who might be interested in its ideas.

Tony Smith

Ironical ahahah learn the real spherization band of comics .after perhaps you can speak ... irritating, full of hate...logic for the second part of the sciences community.Learn and don't teach ahahah

Regards

Dear Tony

220-240Gev: 18x(12,13,14)

174-180Gev: 18x(9,10)

130-145Gev: 18(7,8)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Yuri

The only thing he did not clean

up is the case d = 26, which remains a tantalizing mystery

http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Articles/Missed-Opportunities-Dyson.pdf

Reference from Dyson's article