Top page (correct Bohr model including helium. )

Standard model is wrong.

Supersymmetry transformation.

- Why "fantasy" Supersymmetry is needed ?
- Antiparticles are self-contradictory.
- Experimental results of LHC are doubtful.

*(Fig.1) Supersymmetric particles really exist ?*

According to supersymmetry theory, each elementary particle has its partner.

For example, fermions such as electron and quark have their boson partners, **selectron** and squark.

As shown in Fig.1 and this site, selectron is a spin **0** boson, and photino (= photon's SUSY ) is a spin **1/2** fermion.

This means the number of elementary particles **increases** almost **two times** in SUSY theory !

As you feel, the unified theory **must** decrease the particle's number.

So supersymmetric theory is very **unreasonable**.

*(Fig.2) Dark matter is SUSY ?*

All of photino (← photon ), zino (← Z boson ), and Higgsino (← Higgs ) have spin 1/2 and neutral charge.

SUSY insists these are **superposition** states, which form "**neutralino**".

If supersymmetry particles were as **light** as usual elementary particles, they would have been **already** found in the accelerator.

So they started to argue SUSY particles are very **heavy** ( ~ 1000 GeV, about 1000 times proton ! ).

In the present theory, dark matter accounts for 30 % of total energies in the universe.

Ordinary neutrino is **too light** to explain this "heavy" dark matter.

So there are ONLY "**unrealistic**" SUSY particles such as neutralinos and gravitinos as dark matter's candidate.

*(Fig.3) "Supersymmetry breaking" is a very convenient concept.*

Supersymmetry means each elementary particle and its SUSY partner **must** have the **same** mass and charge.

But if so, we would have **already** found SUSY particles around us, which is **inconsistent**.

So, supersymmetry has to be broken (← very convenient ! ).

If SUSY particle has much **bigger** mass ( about 1000 GeV ), it cannot be discoverd in our daily life.

But if supersymmetry is broken from the beginning, it means SUSY theory itself is **meaningless**.

In fact, the standard model needs to depend on very **abstract** concept such as "symmetry".

Due to the strict limitation of relativity, "**artificial**" symmetry is the **ONLY** tool to **develop** the theory.

This is **disaster**.

*(Fig.4) Only "electron" is stable ? Selectron, positron, "spositron" are unstable ?*

If electron's boson partner "selectron" exists, there is "**spositron**", too.

In all these elementary particles, **only** "electron" is stable.

As you feel, this SUSY theory introduced **too many** unnecessary particles.

**True** "elementary" particles **should** be very stable for a long time.

*(Fig.5) "Spin stopper" = SUSY transformation !?*

It is said that Higgs boson with **zero** spin was ( indirectly ) found.

This means Higgs particle **cannot** spin forever ?

If so, what on earth **prevents** Higgs from rotating ?

This is strange.

If spin zero is real, supersymmetric transformation needs to be performed by some "**spin stopper**".

Question: **Where** are these spin stoppers, now ?

Again, this is strange.

*(Fig.6) Spin rotator generates Higgsino ?*

According to SUSY, Higgsino has spin **1/2**.

**Contrary** to ordinary fermions, "spin zero" Higgs is more stable than spin 1/2 Higgsino. Why ?

To generate Higgsino, "spin rotator" must fly from somewhere.

We want to know **how** these spin stopper and rotator are **made**.

But the current theory can **NEVER** answer this important question. (= "Shut up and calculate !" )

*(Fig.7) Antiparticle is a very convenient tool.*

Photon is neutral, so its fermion partner photino is neutral, too.

But fermions such as electron and quarks **always** have their **antiparticles**.

This means photino has its antipartcile ?

Strange to say, according to
SUSY, these photinos are **Majorana** particles, which means particle and antiparticle are tha **same** thing.

At this point, you easily find these supersymmetric particles are **too good** to be true.

*(Fig.8) What are "chiral" symmetry and "gauge" symmetry ? ← Physics ?*

According to the standard model, left-handed and right-handed fermions are separated, when their mass is **zero**.

This is called chiral symmetry ( see this section ).

And due to gauge symmetry, photon's mass becomes zero, they insist.

As you see, the current particle physics **blindly** believes very **abstract** math "symmetry".

*(Fig.9) Supersymmetry is needed for "light" Higgs ?*

As I said above, **fermion**'s mass becomes zero due to **chiral** symmetry.

**Vector** boson such as photon becomes **massless** due to **gauge** symmetry.

The problem is, there is **NO** symmetry to describe Higgs **small** mass ( ~126 GeV ) in the standard model.

So they introduced **artificial** supersymmetry to make Higgs a light particle. See this site and this site.

Because Higgs is scalar boson with spin zero, which is different from fermions and vector boson (= spin 1 ).

But this reason is **NOT** physics at all. It's just **unsubstantial** math symbols.

See this section.

*(Fig.10) SUSY particle cannot be detected directly in the accelerator.*

The importatn point is that supersymmetry (SUSY) particles **cannot** be detected directly.

According to R-parity conservation, SUSY particle **always** decays into SUSY particle.

This means there are some **lightest** supersymmetric particles (= LSP ), which can be **stable** forever.

But this LSP leaves NO signature in the detector, like neutrino.

So this presence must be inferred from **missing** transverse energy.

To know correct missing energy, they have to detect **all other** scattered energies.

Of course, it is **impossible** under **infinite** background.

Besides this vague LSP, ordinary neutrino is missing energy, too.

So the present high energy physics depends on very **forced** interpretation of experimental results.

*(Fig.11) "Infinite" Higgs are distributed around us, and giving mass ?*

According to this site and this site, **infinite** Higgs particles are uniformly distributed **all over** the space, and giving mass to **every** elementary particle.

Ordinary webnews sites often say, "Though Higgs are all around us in the space, it's extremely **hard** to find them."

As you feel, these expressions are **self-contradictory**.

If **infinite** Higgs are distributed all over the space, we can **easily** find and **utilize** Higgs for our daily living.

But it's **impossible**. This is strange.

*(Fig.12) Only one Higgs appears in "trillions" of collisions !? ← Really all over the space ?*

This site and this site say more than **1 trillion** collisions are necessary to generate **one** Higgs boson.
It's like looking for a **needle** in a haystack.

When you see these comments, you will probably think, this very **rare** Higgs inside accelerator is completely **inconsistent** with the original Higgs, which are distributed **all over** the space.

For example, electrons are said to form all atoms with nuclei.

Actually, we can **easily** find electrons by ionizing any atoms or molecules.

So, electrons are **consistent** with the original definition, which means "**real**". But Higgs is **NOT**.

Futhermore, as shown on this site, Higgs lifetime is only **10 ^{-22}** seconds ! Very

So Higgs inside accelerator

*(Fig.13) Top quak is as heavy as gold atom ! But elementary particle !?*

As shown on this site, top quak mass is about 174000 MeV, which is as heavy as **gold** atom.

In spite of this large mass, the **lifetime** of top quark is extremely short ( Only **10 ^{-25}** seconds ! )

According to this site, out of as many as **6 trillion** collisions only **forty** top quarks were observed.

Of course, fractional charges such as +2/3. -1/3 **cannot** be detected, so quark themselves are just "**fictitious**" particles.

*(Fig.14) 98% of nuclear mass is due to QCD. Higgs accounts for only 2% of it. *

As shown on this site, quark's mass acoount for only **a few** percent of nuclear mass.

More than 98 % of nuclear mass originates in chiral symmetry breaking ( gluon interaction ).

And the masses of "up" and "down" quarks are free parameters ( NOT experimental values ), which can be **changed** freely.

Very heavy top quark and very light up quarks have the same charge (= +2/3e ) !

But top quark **cannot** form nuclei, which mass (= gold-like ) is caused **only** by Higgs, they insist.

Seeing these **far-fetched** interpretations, you will surely think these quarks are very **convenient** unrealistic concepts

*(Fig.15) W boson is too heavy (= 80000 MeV ), which cannot be generated from tiny down quark.*

The extremely large mass (= **80 GeV** is 80 times proton's mass ) of this W boson is gotten from data based on the high energy accelerator.

So this W boson in the accelerator is completely **different** from that of beta decay in the laboratory.

In usual β decay, down quark inside neutron changes into up quark inside proton emitting negative W boson, they insist.

But the energy difference between down and up quarks is only **3 MeV**, which is much **smaller** than the W boson mass (= 80 GeV = **80000 MeV** ). It means W boson in accelerator is a **different** thing from β decay.

And the lifetime of W boson is only **10 ^{-25}** seconds, and only

It is

So the accelerators did

*(Fig.16) Higgs, quarks, and SUSY are found ? → There is NO "next" thing to do.*

Even if physicists argue "Higgs, SUSY and four-quarks " have been found", it's completely **meaningless**.

These unstable particles **cannot** be observed directly.

Furthermore, almost infinite collisions are necessary to produce them.

So the hunting for unstable particles in accelerator is very similar to research on early universe and black hole.

Even if we waste a great deal of money and time in these expensive accelerators, we **cannot** utilize these fictitious particles **forever**.

First, very **rare** Higgs is completely **inconsistent** with the original definition of "**infinite**" Higgs around us.

**Unuseful** ( directly and undirectly ) particles means these are **unreal**.

*(Fig.17) Hypercharge changes ONLY by its moving direction ??*

As shown on this site, in the **right**-handed particle, the direction of its spin is the **same** as the direction of its motion.

In the **left**-handed, their directions are **opposite**.

The current standard model considers these very vague **helicity** as most important.

Surprisingly, weak isospin and **hypercharge** are completely different between these right and left -handed electrons, as shown on this site.

As you see Fig.17, when an electron **changes** its moving direction, its **hypercharge** becomes "**-2**" from "**-1**" !

Then, this hypercharge is **NOT** a fundamental charge !? This is strange.

*(Fig.18) What is "hypercharge" ? → "Shut up and calculate !"*

Of course, both left-handed (= e_{L} ) and right-handed (= e_{R} ) electrons have one negative charge (= **-1** ).

To fit this fact, they just **adjust** each weak isospin (= T3 ) and hypercharge (= Y ).

So these isospin and hypercharge are very **artificial** concepts.

And it is **unnatural** that these hypercharges changes **ONLY** by its moving direction.

Physicists **NEVER** try to answer the question of **what** these hypercharges really are.

*(Fig.19) Positron really exists ?*

Positron is the antiparticle of the electron.

The positron has a opposite charge +e and the same mass as an electron.

According to the current quantum theory, a positron easily **annihilates** with electron, forming γ rays.

The important point is that the existence of these antiparticles are completely **inconsistent** with basic physical principles.

This means antiparticles are **unreal**.

*(Fig.20) Positron is produced from photon. Why "nucleus" is necessary ?*

According to this site and this site, when a high-energy electron comes **near** a nucleus, and is deflected in its path, it **radiates** photons.

These photons spontaneously **turn** into an electron-positron pair.

But if this explanation is right, the nucleus (= target ) is **NOT** necessary.

**ONLY** under the strong electromagnetic field, each electron can radiate high-energy lights !

Then why they must **collide** electrons with other nuclei to produce positron ?

The reason of this is very **unreasonable**.

*(Fig.21) Momentum of incident light suddenly becomes zero ( p = 0 ) !?*

This website says,

----------------------------

If the photon only just had enough energy to create the mass of the electron-positron pair then the electron and positron will be **at rest**.

This could **violate** the conservation of **momentum** since the photon has momentum ( p = E/c ) and the two resulting electrons have **none** ( p = 0 ) if they are stationary ( momentum = mass × velocity ).

This means that the pair production **must** take place **near** the nucleus since they can **absorb** the momentum of the original photon.

-----------------------------

In fact, this explanation is self-**contradictory**. See also this site.

It is **impossible** for the nucleus to absorb **ONLY** momentum, **without** energy.

Because absorbing momentum means absorbing some **kinetic** energy.

*(Fig.22) Only momentum is NOT conserved.*

As shown in Fig.22, when the incident photon has the energy of just **2mc ^{2}**, one pair of electron and positron can be created, according to Einstein relation.

But in this case, these resultant electron-positron do **NOT** have kinetic energy at all.

Because all energies of the photon are used for their **mass** energy.

Of course, the incident light has momentum ( p = E/c ).

But the resultant electron-positron has **NO** momentum ( p = 0 ).
This is strange.

*(Fig.23) Convenient nucleus can absorb "excessive" momentum ?*

Of course, the total momentum ( and energy ) **must** be conserved.

To be consistent with this basic law, they think the nucleus near photon **absorbs** this excessive momentum.

As you may notice, this explanation is **unreasonable**.

*(Fig.24) This nucleus has "momentum", but NOT kinetic energy !?*

Strange to say, this nucleus has momentum, but **NO** kinetic energy !

In the realistic world, this is **impossible**.

This fact clearly shows pair production of positron-electron is impossible.

A positron is just a positive ion or proton ( or **scattered** electrons ), considering it always needs **collision** with nuclei.

*(Fig.25) Positron-electron annihilation is real ?*

Next we think about the annihilation of electron positron pair.

According to Feynman rule, this pair produces **one** new **photon**.

*(Fig.26) Center of mass system.*

We think about the center of mass system, in which electron and positron are flying in the **opposite** directions, and crash into each other.

According to the energy and momentum conservation, the resultant photon's energy is **twice** the original particle.

*(Fig.27) *

But the phoron's momentum is cancelled out to be **zero**, which means the resultant photon **stops** ! See this site (p.2).

Of course, photon (= light ) **cannot** stop, so this photon is virtual photon, which **violates** relativity.

According to Feynman diagram, first, only **one** photon is produced by electron-positron annihilation.

As you see, the existence of positron causes self-**contradiction** in the relativistic quantum field theory.

*(Fig.28) Na22 isotope can decay by both electron capture and β+ decay.*

As shown on this site and this site (p.3), the decay of **Na22** proceeds by positron β+ emission (90%) or **electron capture** (10%) to pruduce **Ne22**.

In both β+ decay, and electron capture, the positive charge of Na22 nucleus **decreases** by one.

But you easily find it is **impossible** that both these decays happen in the same kind of nuclei.

*(Fig.29) Electron capture: Na nucleus "absorbs" one negative enectron.*

In electron capture, nucleus absorbs one negative electron.

So the atomic number of Na (= 11 ) changes into Ne (= 10 ).

Inside Na nucleus, a proton and an electron form one neutron.

A neutron is a little **heavier** than a proton, so this process is very **natural**.

*(Fig.30) β+ decay: Na nucleus emits one positron ? *

In β+ decay, Na nucleus emits one positive **positron**.

So also in this case, positive charge (= atomic number ) of Na nucleus decreases by one.

This is the reason why they argue both electron capture and β+ decay give the **same** Ne nucleus.

But as you see, in electron capture, Na nucleus **absorbs** a particle, on the other hand, in β+ decay, Na nucleus **emit** a particle !

These are **NOT** the same.

*(Fig.31) A Proton can be divided into two ? → positron ?*

As you know, the positive **charge** of atomic nuclei originates in **protons**.

Because, very unstable positron **cannot** stay inside nuclei for a long time.

This means in β+ decay, the protons inside Na nucleus must be **divided** into two, to **give** its positive **charge** to positron !

Of course, this is **impossible**.

*(Fig.32) Where energy is emitted ? Their places contain self-contradiction.*

The **same** resultant Ne nucleus means the **same** amount of **energy** must be emitted in both electron capture and β+ decay.

In electron capture ( Fig.32 upper ), this energy is emitted from absorbing Na **nucleus** itself.

On the other hand, in β+ decay ( Fig.32 lower ), Na nuceus just emits a positron instead of energy.

And this positron annihilates with an external electron, and emits the energy of 2me^{2} **somewhere else**.

This means **a part** of emitted energies needs to be **teleported** to **unrelated** external electron (= mass energy ) somewhere else, only in β+ decay !

Of course, this is **impossible**, so β+ decay (= positron ) is **unrealistic**.

*(Fig.33) Breaking Mg nuclei generates Na22 source. ← Positron is NOT involved at all.*

As shown on this site, to produce positron source Na22, a **magnesium** target is **bombarded** for several weeks with a high-energy proton beam.

This means Na22 nucleus can be produced by **removing** one proton and neutron from Mg nucleus.

And the lifetime of this Na22 positron source is as long as **2 years**.

So very **unstable** positron **cannot** stay inside Na nucleus, even if it is produced at the first bombardment.

From this fact, you find Na22 source has **Nothing** to do with "fantasy" positron.

This Na22 has excessive **proton**, which tends to absorb electron through **electron capture**.

*(Fig.34) Positron moderator can slow down positron ?*

As shown on this site and this site, moderator is said to slow high energy positrons.

This moderator is only a few µm thick, and made of tungsten or solid Ne.

After passing this moderator, the positrons becomes 1/10000 of the original amount.

If we want to **only** slow down positrons, we need to apply electric field **instead** of using this moderator.

Then why they try to use this moderator ?

Emitted particles such as electrons, ions (= Na+ ) have **high** energy ( ~ **1 MeV** = 10^{6} eV ! ).

So they can overcome binding energy (= 3 eV ) inside solid, and a part of them can pass through them.

So it is natural that we think positron they insist is a **mixture** of high energy positive ions ( Na+ ) and electrons.

Because, it is **impossible** to separate only small number of positrons from other particles.

*(Fig.35) Very small number of positrons can be separated ? *

In this paper, they injected very high energy electron's beam (= **8 GeV** ) into tungsten target.

At the area of magnetic field, these positrons turn their moving directions by Lorentz force.

In some detection medium, high speed positrons emit **cherenkov** lights, which amount expresses positron's number, they insist.

But these kinds of experiments always **neglect** Coulomb **scattering** among many charged particles.

*(Fig.36) Lorentz magnetic force gives only "momentum" information.*

In Fig.36, the centrifugal force is equal to the Lorentz magnetic force (= eBv ) under the external magnetic field (= B ).

In this case, rotating radius (= r ) is a function of momentum (= mv ).

So, we **cannot** distinguish positrons and other positive charges only from magnetic field.

If particles have the same momentum ( = mv ), the velocity of heavier particles becomes **slower** than lighter ones.

To distinguish them, they pass these particles through some radiation medium, in which only **high-speed** charged particles ( ex. "light" positron ) can emit **cherenkov** lights.

So can we detect positron correctly by this method ?

*(Fig.37) They "neglect" multi-particle Coulomb scattering.*

But these intepretations are based on very **ideal** preconditions.

If there are **ONLY one** positron inside this device, this positron turns its moving direction by Lorentz magnetic force.

But in this case, this path is **filled** with a lot of charged particles such as electrons, protons, and broken nuclei.

So incident high energy electrons are easily **scattered** by other particles.

Or **secondary** electrons generated from inner wall or ions can fly into detector.

8 GeV is much **bigger** than electron's mc^{2} (= 0.5 MeV ), so ejected or **scatterd** electrons are high speed, too.

*(Fig.38) Coulomb scattering is influential.*

Basically, researchers in the high energy accelerators tend to **neglect** many-body **Coulomb** effect.

When charged particles come near each other, Coulomb force becomes much **bigger** than magnetic force.

Of course, it is **impossible** to predict many body Coulomb effect correctly in the space filled with **infinite** high-speed particles.

This is the most important **weakness** in the high energy physics.

*(Fig.39) A small number of antiparticles easily causes "error". *

Besically, the numebr of antiparticles are very **small**, comparing electrons, protons and ions.

So we easily **mistake** other charged particles for antiparticles.

*(Fig.40) ATLAS detector consists of tracker, calorimeter, muon chamber.*

As shown on this site, Detectors in accelerators consist of four major components.

In the tracking chamger, charged particles **ionize** electrons in the medium, which gives **momentum** information under magnetic field.

In the calorimeter, chared particles **collide** with materials and generate particle **shower**.

By measuring the total amount of secondary electric currents or lights, they can estimate the energy of the particle.

According to the current particle physics, muons can pass through calorimeter without stopping.

So the muon spectrometer covers the outer most layer of ATLAS detector.

*(Fig.41) Silicon tracker. Coulomb scattering obstructs Lorentz magnetic force.*

The innermost part of ATLAS consists of silicon semi-conductor tracker, which can determine the **position** of particles, as shown on this site.

When charged particle passes through this detector, it creates ionization of electrons and holes in the bulk of silicon.

This hole drifts toward Al strips and their electric current is detected.

As shown on this site (p.4) and this site (p.40), as many as **25000** hole-electron pairs are produced, when one charged particle passes.

So, each particle is clearly **scattered** in these silicon detectos by Coulomb force.

This badly **influences** momentum measurement under magnetic field.

*(Fig.42) Coulomb scattering is much greater than Lorentz magnetic force. *

As far as I see, researchers in the accelerators clearly **neglect** these Coulomb **scattering**.

Of course, it is **impossible** to consider all multi-Coulomb effects among **infinite** particles.

The measurement of particle's momentum in the tracker is very important for **identifying** particles.

Each particle has to pass more than 4 layers of the above silicon detectors.

So 25000 × 4 = **100000** electron-hole pairs are generated only by one particle !

Of course, each particle **loses** its energy, which **cannot** be detected correctly (= one of **missing** energy ).

*(Fig.43) Transition radiation tracker in ATLAS.*

Furthermore, as shown on this site (p.23, p.25 ), each particle has to pass through 30 TRT (= transition radiation tracker ).

TRT is composed of carbon and tungsten straws with a diameter of 4 mm.

The space between the straws is **filled** with polypropylene
materials where electrons radiate X rays.

This X rays is absorbed by Xe gas, leading to the production of a **large amount** of charge.

As you see, each particle has to pass various solids ( **NOT** vacuum ) for the measurement of its momentum.

So the interpretation of gotten momentum and particle **identification** based on these detectors are very **doubtful**.

*(Fig.44) Electromagnetic calorimeter. *

As shown on this site, when photons and electrons hit the absorbers of the calorimeter, a shower of secondary particles and ionization electrons are released into liquid argon, where the presense of an electric field results in a detectable current signal.

But of course, there are some detection **threshold**, so all generated particles **cannot** be detected.

Furthermore, we **cannot** know **kinetic** energy of each secondary particle, which can give **wrong** missing energies.

*(Fig.45) *

When a charged particle transverses these materials, about half the lost energy is converted
into inonization and half into scintillation.

The best energy resolution would obviously be obtained by collecting both the charge and light signal.

But as shown on this site (p.39), this is rarely done because of the technical **difficulties** to extract light and charge in the same instrument.

*(Fig.46) Each transferred kinetic energy ( and light frequencies ) cannot be known.*

The measurement of total energy in the calorimeter is based on very **rough** estimation.

Even if they measure total charges of secondary particles, it doesn't mean to know total energy.

Because these detectors **cannot** measure the **kinetic** energy and frequency of each particle and light.

So, the values of the missing energy (= neutrino or LSP ) gotten in the accelerators are very **doubtful**.

*(Fig.47) Boson and fermion's loops cancel each other ?*

As shown on this site (p.4), one loop correction of Higgs mass diverges to **infinity**.

At this point, you easily find the standard model based on renormalization is **NOT** real physics.

According to QED, fermions and bosons give **infinity** of the opposite sign.

This opposite sign originates in anticommutation of fermions,

Physicists **NEVER** try to ask what these anticommutation and infinite loop really are.

So, the standard model and supersymmetry can **never** advance from here.

*(Fig.48) "Chiral symmetry" is the reason why fermion's mass is small !? Really ?*

Under very strict relativistic limination, all physicists could do was to define some **artificial** symmetry to develop their theories.

For example, in Fig.48, when Lagrangian is invariant under chiral transformation, this is called chiral symmetry.

This chiral symmetry is broken, when fermion has mass. ( So they are broken from the beggining. )

As you see, it is **impossible** that these abstract math symbols describe real world.

*(Fig.49) MSSM with 124 free parameters is a convenient theory.*

The mininal supersymmetric standard model (= MSSM ) is the simplest version of SUSY.

Particle physicists tend to consider supersymmetry as most important concept.

But SUSY particles cannot be easily found. So supersymmetry is **broken**, which makes SUSY particle extremely **heavy**, they insist.

Due to this breaking, MSSM contains as many as 124 free parameters such as masses and **coupling** constants.

This means SUSY **cannot** predict anything like **10 dimensional** superstring theory with **10 ^{500}** vacua.

They try to

*(Fig.50) "Gauge symmetry" is the reason why photon is massless ? Really ?*

In the current standard model, "**gauge symmetry**" is the most important principle.

When Lagrangian (= F_{μν} ) is invariant under gauge transformaton, this is called "gauge symmetry".

If photon has mass, this gauge symmetry is broken, so photon is massless, they insist.

But weak boson has big mass, which means this gauge symmetry is broken from the beginning, too.

So this "broken" gauge symmetry is **meaningless**.

They should stop **blindly** believing this "math" religion.

*(Fig.51) Interactive Lagrangians between Higgs and fermions ( bosons ).*

As shown on this site, it is said that supersymmetry can solve **fine-tuning** problem in Higgs mass.

Unfortunately, these concepts are only math symbols, and have **No** relation with our real world.

Interactive Lagrangian between Higgs and fermions ( or bosons ) can be expressed like Fig.51.

Lagrangian (= Hamiltonian ) has very **abstract** form in quantum theory.

*(Fig.52) *

Time evolution of the system obeys **exponential** function, which includes Lagrangian L.

In case of fermion case, quadratic term is involved in one loop divergence.

*(Fig.53) *

Using the quadratic terms of Fig.52, Feynman diagram forms one loop, when we **link** each functions.

"Loop" means this equations gives **infinite** (= meaningless ) probability.

This is just QED **math** rule.

*(Fig.54) *

In QED, the **order** of each function is very important.

Comparing Fig.52 and Fig.53, we need to **move** the right ψ to the left side.

Due to **anticommutation** relation of fermions, the total sign becomes **opposite**, when two functions are **exchanged**.

Of course, this is just math ( NOT physical ) reason.

To move the right ψ to the left, we have to exchange functions **three** times.

"Three" is odd number, so (-1)^{3} = -1, **negative** sign is added to this equation, they insist.

*(Fig.55) *

On the other hand, bosons obey ordinary commutation relation.

So negative sign is NOT added, even if we exchange boson functions.

As a result, only fermion's Lagrangian becomes negative, and boson is positive.

These fermions and bosons **cancel** each other out, they insist.

*(Fig.56) *

If supersymmetry cannot be used, **bare** Higgs mass must cancel quadratic divergent term (= Λ^{2} ).

Quadratic divergence is as big as 10^{30} GeV in the grand unification theory.

Real Higgs mass is only 126 GeV, so bare Higgs mass needs to cancel as many as 30-figure values (= **fine-tuning** )

Unfotunately, there are **NO** concrete physical images here. Meaningless.

*(Fig.57) Fermion and boson loops cancel each other ? "Real" physics ?*

If we calculate one loop divergence based on Fig.53, Fig.55 and this page, quadratic divergence is cancelled out by **negative** sign of fermion's loop.

So they argue supersymmetry by fermion and boson can solve fine-tuning problem of Higgs mass.

But **logarithmic** divergence is left, which gives **infinite** values.

After all, even if we introduce supersymmetry, artificial renormalization has to be used to remove infinity.

*(Eq.1) *

In this section, we explain "chiral symmetry", which is a reason why fermion's mass is small.

Unfortunately, the concept of this symmetry is only abstract math, **NOT** "real" physics at all.

Lagrangian of Dirac equation can be expressed like Eq.1. See also this site (p.89).

We use "chiral expression" in 4 × 4 γ matrices, as follows,

*(Eq.2) *

*(Eq.2') *

If you exchange different γ matrices, negative sign is added, as shown in Eq.2'.

In Eq.2, σ is 2 × 2 **Pauli** matrices, as follows,

*(Pa.1) *

Here we do the following **Chiral** transformation using γ^{5} matrix of Eq.2.

*(Pa.2) *

If Lagrangian (= L ) remains the same under this transformation, this is called "**Chiral symmetry**".

So, "symmetry" means **invariance** of Lagrangian ( which gives Hamiltonian, equation of motion ) under some transformations such as Lorentz, gauge, supersymmetry.

*(Eq.3) *

First, we consider the **mass** (= m ) of fermions is **zero** in Eq.3.

As a result, only the first term (= kinetic energy ) of Eq.3 is left.

*(Eq.4) *

"†" means complex **conjugate** transpose.

Under chiral transformation of Eq.3, Lagrangian of Eq.4 changes like

*(Eq.5) *

From Eq.2, we have

*(Eq.6) *

From Eq.6, if γ^{5} moves over **two** (different) γ matrices, the total sign remains the **same**.

*(Eq.7) *

As a result, Eq.5 becomes the **same** as the original Lagrangian ( L' = L ), as follows,

*(Eq.8) *

Eq.8 shows when the mass of fermions is **zero**, its Lagnrangian remains the same under chiral transformation.

Physicists call this state "chiral symmetry", very **abstract** math, NOT physics.

Next, we think about the fermions having finite **mass**.

*(Eq.9) *

The second term of Eq.3 Lagrangian is mass term (= Eq.9 ).

Under the chiral transformation, this **mass** term **changes** like

*(Eq.10) *

As shown in Eq.10 two exponential functions **don't** cancel each other in this **mass** Lagrangian.

So they started to insist, when fermions have "mass" ( Lagrangian ), chiral symmetry is **broken**.

Unfortunately, there are **NO** physical images here.

These are just **artificial** math rules, do **NOT** mean the truth of Nature.

*(Eq.11) Gauge symmetry → photon's mass is zero !? *

Lagrangian of Maxwell equation contains antisymmetric tesnors (= F_{μν} ), as shown on this site and this site.

"A_{μ}" denotes vector potential, which means **photon** ( or W boson, gluon ).

If Lagrangian remains the same under **gauge transformation** (= Eq.13 ), this is called "gauge symmetry".

If photon's Lagrangian contains mass term, this Lagrangian cannot keep the same form under this transformation.

So the physicists argue, photon's mass is zero due to gauge **symmetry**.

Unfortunately, very abstract reason **without** physical reason.

*(Eq.12) *

The kenetic term of photon's Lagrangian becomes like Eq.12 ( see also this page. )

*(Eq.13) Gauge transformation.*

Under the gauge transformation of Eq.13, **F _{μν}** of Eq.12 transforms like

As shown in Eq.14, this F_{μν} inside Lagrangian remains the **same** under this gauge transformation.

As a result, total Lagrangian remains the **same**,
which is called "**gauge symmetry**".

*(Eq.15) Photon's mass term*

Next we think about the photon's **mass** term inside Lagrangian.

Under the gauge transformation of Eq.13, mass Lagrangian (= Eq.15 ) tranforms like

*(Eq.16) *

As you see, **mass** Lagrangian of Eq.16 **cannot** keep its original form (= Eq.15 ).

So, physicists started to argue, photon is massless because gauge symmetry is kept.

Again, this is just abstract math reason, which has NO relation with real world.

They should clarify the **true** meaning of gauge (= θ ), **NOT** saying "Shut up and calculate !".

And W gauge boson has large mass, which means gauge symmetry is broken from the beginning.

So, this broken symmety is **meaningless**.

*(Eq.17) Lagrangian including boson and fermion.*

If boson and fermion form "superposition" through **supersymmetry**, Higgs mass
can be **small**, because the boson **can** utilize chiral symmetry of fermions.

Unfortunately, there are **NO** physical reasons at all here.

Eq.17 is Lagrangian including bosons and fermions with the **same** mass ( ex. m = 0 ).

*(Eq.18) Supersymmetric transformation ?*

As shown on this site and this site, supersymmetry transformation exchanges bosons (= φ ) and fermions (= χ ).

When Lagrangian is **invariant** under this transformation, this is called "supersymmetry".

As you see Eq.18, these are only **artificial** math rules, which do **NOT** represent physical reality at all.

Physicists must **give up** this unrealistic supersymmetry and **10-dimensional** string theory in order to **develop** real science.

They should notice this **serious** fact.

*(Eq.19) "Broken" supersymmetry is meaningless.*

The important point is that we **cannot** easily find supersymmetric particles.

This means supersymmetry has been **broken** from the **beginning**.

So, introducing "supersymmetry" itself is **meaningless**.

But, the current standard model must **continue** creating **fictitious** "symmetry" to **develop** its theory.

This is disaster.

*(Eq.20) Mass unit of bosons, fermions.*

Lagrangians of bosons and fermions contains different numbers of derivative, as shown in Eq.17.

So the (mass) **units** of boson (= φ ) and fermions (= χ ) are **different**.

As you notice, if boson and fermion have **different** units, supersymmetric transformation itself is **impossible**.

So theorists artificially introduced "**unreal**" fermions of ξ

This ξ is also **fermion**, but has **different** unit from the **real** fermion χ.

Of course, if there are two kinds of fermions with different units, it means **self-contradiction**.

As a result, the idea of supersymmetry itself is **unreasonable**.

But under "Shut up and calculate !" quantum theory, all physicists can do is **only** strange supersymmetry.

Again, this is disaster.

About detailed calculation, see this page.

*(Fig.58) 26 dimensions → 10 dimensions of superstring theory !? Fantasy ?*

As shown on this site, the original string theory consisting only of boson needs **26** spacetime dimensions !

"Super" of superstring theory means supersymmetry.

So they insist supersymmetry is indispensable for changing 26 to **10** dimensions.

Unfortunately, **both** these dimensions are **unrealistic** and fantasy.

If you ignore fatal paradox of relativity, all can you study in physics is "**fantasy**" string theory.

2014/5/1 updated. Feel free to link to this site.