As long expected the first empirical signs obtained on the particle of Higgs have been announced(3). In a short time – we can easily foresee –, other similar news will come out, progressively with more assurance, until it will be confirmed and believed that the particle really exists. After that, we hope, ‘Higgs’ will no longer be the name of a hypothetical mechanism but will designate what it truly is: a veritable force of Nature, sometimes diffused in a scalar field, sometimes condensed in the Higgs boson, whose physical attribute is nothing more than mass.
It is time for us to renew our recognition to Weinberg-Salan and their commendable endeavor towards the unification of the electromagnetic and the weak forces. In this theoretical process, however, they were obliged to accept the intervening of the mechanism of Higgs in order to “feed” mass to the weak bosons W± e Z0. Thus, the weak bosons may, upon cooling, differentiate from the foton (break of symmetry). The confirmation of the existence of the Higgs particle and, hence, the raising of the hypothetical mechanism of Higgs to the status of a so-called force of nature will lead to a striking consequence: for the first time in the history of Physics, an human endeavor to unify something will have found an intrinsic physical resistance (or is it possible that behind this scene, the ill-will of the One-in-trinity in person had been operating?!). They would have begun with two entities – the electromagnetic and the weak forces – with the goal of reaching up to only one, as it would have been politically and semantically correct. Surprisingly, in the end they did not find a single one but again two entities – the electroweak force and the Higgs force.
So now, we face a terrible numeric problem! How should we seriously count the Higgs force: as the fifth (4), or the fourth force? A difficult question to which we have not so far found an answer in the specialized conspicuous literature. Maybe the reason for that is because the question has not been formulated in the appropriate manner. If we assume that there is no real reason to disqualify and hence to dis-count the old inter-nucleonics strong force suggested by Yukawa in the 1930s (a force mediated by pions, pions that really exist, the question would be: Is Higgs the sixth or the fifth force? Considering that in the standard model there are 3 pairs of leptons and 3 pairs of quarks, who would answer that the Higgs force is fifth, not the sixth?! And who would not soon ask himself: Why not one in one of the 3 pairs of Nature forces?
Actually, the Higgs force is neither the fifth nor the fourth but the sixth force of Nature.
We are not unnecessarily increasing the number of forces in Nature, as some might facilely suppose, but instead we are reducing the actual number. In essence and in accordance to the own desideratum of Physics, the forces are now only three, because three of them – the electromagnetic, weak one, and Yukawa’s old strong one – can be considered composed forces, closely associated to simple ones – respectively, the forces of Higgs, the gravitational, and the strong (gluonics) one, as shown in Figure 1. Note-se que as forças compostas têm todos os seus mediadores empiricamente conhecidos, o que já não vale para seja qual for a força simples. Convenhamosmos: coisas como esta não acontecem por mero acaso!
In this regard, the accepted reduction of the Yukawa’s old strong the gluonic strong force is exactly one of the three cases of our generic proposal. We can now understand why the unanimous subsequent dismissal of the Yukawa force is not a very physical question, but a socio-psychological one!
Figure 1 – The physical entities according to their fundamental attributes (spin MT, cliname M/L and mass M)
It is now easy to agree that the framework suggested above, formed by eight essential physical entities – three elementary forces, three derived or composed forces, the vacuum and the class of fermions – is logically and completely structured. This organization takes into account the three fundamental attributes of materiality: spin, expressing the physical individuality (sameness); cliname, expressing the physical capacity relating to other entities (being-with-others); and mass, which dialectically synthesizes the previous two attributes (5), as shown in Figure 2. The vacuum (the material nothing(6)), of course, has no material attribute; the simple forces have only one attribute; the derived or composed forces have a couple of attributes (the attribute missing is the one responsible for the internal structure of the respective boson); finally, we have the class of fermions, endowed with a complete set of fundamental attributes; for that, there is a unique and well justified exception – the neutrino of the electron, without mass (7).
Figure 2 – From the One-in-trinity to the triple materiality
Now we can concentrate our attention on the ensemble of physical theories to investigate what could have being the historical obstacles hampering the unification process. We believe that the problem is situated in the General Relativity, not in the theory itself, but in the elements inherited from the Newtonian theory of gravitation. Newton is deservedly credited for giving formal expression to the relational force pervading all material beings (law of gravitation), including revealing its characteristic constant (the gravitational constant, G). However, he failed precisely in disclosing the essence or the fundament behind this fact. To be constant is not an essentiality, it needs a justification. In the case of the gravitational constant (G), this justification should be a compromise between mass (M) and space (L). Let us insist on this: that is no more than a compromise, not a simple and immediate identification between them (8). From a philosophical point of view, we can say that to be constant is a secondary attribute to which we have to present a fundament. Apparently this serious shortcoming of the gravitational theory was not seen by Einstein, neither in the occasion of the formulation of the Special Relativity, nor later, during the formulation of the General Relativity.
When Einstein noted the problem, better saying, when he felt its dramatic effects, namely the possibility of the collapse of a physical entity into a mathematical entity (later on, as known, the result of such collapse was named a black hole). He thought that such inconsistency could be solved by itself in the context of General Relativity, and he believed this could be simply demonstrated by showing (9) that the Schwarzschild radius was an unstable limit. The gravitational collapse going beyond this radius was not even considered – certainly Einstein thought this would be a nonsense (10). This attempt failed, and, ironically, in the same year Oppenheimer and Snyder (11) published an article showing that the emergency of black holes was admissible in the scope of the General Relativity. The Schwarzschild radius, as Einstein supposed, was in fact proven to be an unstable limit, however not as an insurmountable wall but as a gateway from here to nowhere land!
Por isso, a “prova” falhou... De outro lado, a posterior descoberta dos quasares, fontes de energia com tal intensidade que se acreditou inexplicáveis com os recursos teóricos de então, não permitiria mais que se recuasse no desvario. Além do mais, o sensacionalismo...
In order to find our way out of this entanglement it is necessary to define a good strategy, which, in turn, depends upon finding a solid conceptual chart (see Figure 3).
First we need to proceed to a deep revision of the Newtonian theory of gravitation, specifically, the essential meaning of the gravitational constant, G. It will be something linking mass and space, i.e., establishing a limitation for the physical relationship between these two entities. Because an absolute relationship is impossible, we easily conclude that the cliname, a (12), cannot assume an infinite value. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a new postulate in the Newtonian gravitational theory stating that the cliname must be under a certain limit value, precisely, the cliname of Planck, it is to say, a £ c2/2G (13).
Figure 3 – Physical theories according to the compromise between the fundamental dimensions T, L and M
If we are correct about the Newtonian gravitational theory (now called gravitational* after introduction of the new postulate of the cliname limitation), no inconsistencies will appear due to gravitational phenomenon, particularly, in the scope of the Special Relativity (14). So, we are free to articulate this last one with the gravitational theory in order to obtain a new General Relativity* , really consistent.
Closer inspection of Figure 3 shows that, before we can think about a unified theory, we need to face the problem of quantum gravitation. Tenta-se hoje, é fato, a quantização da gravidade diretamente a partir da Relatividade Geral, o que, pela simples observação desta mesma figura, se mostra péssima estratégia teórica. A necessidade de uma teoria quântica precisa se impor diretamente apenas levando-se em consideração a escala microscópica, o que só pode acontecer a distância convenientemente reduzida, a partir da qual o campo gravitacional tenha colapsado, podendo então com esta proeza concorrer com os outros campos.
We have already concluded (15) that at short distances (about 10-19 m (16)), all lines of forces of the gravitational field abandon their radial configuration to converge onto a near mass, becoming a saturated force, as intense as the other forces of Nature (1043 times more intense than the common gravitational force that we are used to). In this condition, the intensity of the new gravitational force will be expressed by the formula F = G.a02, where a0 @ 3,8 1010 kg/m is named propre cliname, similarly to the well known propre mass and propre angular moment (spin).
After that, it is unquestionable that the particle of Higgs does indeed exist. However, it might be prudent to ask: could the particle now announced be really the Higgs boson? This question is, in fact, justified. How could we imagine that the empirical discovery of such fundamental particle should take place before the identification of other, less “logically essential” ones as the gluon and the graviton? How could we understand the discovery of the particle responsible for giving mass before the graviton linking mass? Keeping the proportions, it is as if the neutrino could have been discovered before the proton or the electron!
A “descoberta” que com açodo se anuncia, já traz implícito que a partícula em questão não possui spin, o que obviamente exclui a possibilidade de que fosse um gluon. Não sendo o gluon, então terá que ser necessariamente o graviton, bastando que se venha constatar (e não temos dúvida que assim será) que ela também não tem massa própria. Não tendo nem spin nem massa, só lhe resta o atributo cliname: trata-se inquestionavelmente do graviton, que, entretanto, para ser realmente mostrado e aceito, terá ainda que esperar pelo LHC (17).
In this case, however, how might that be made compatible with the expected spin 2 (18) for the graviton?!
Well, for all we can foresee that will no longer represent an important problem, for the General Relativity (without asterisk) which has been until now the upholder of that supposed value of spin, would have imploded for good (19)!
Luiz Sergio Coelho de Sampaio
Rio de Janeiro, 29/12/2000
Notes
1. This paper is dedicated to Ricardo Kubrusly, as a friendly chastisement. For a long time he has tried hard not to work towards entering History and now he has got a lot more to work to escape from it.
2. Physics is the desire of Modernity – it seeks the One-in-trinity, however, submitted to measurement and calculus –, as Philosophy was the desire of the Greeks – who sought the being-one, however, under the great empire of the logos –, and as the Myth was the desire of the Neolithic culture – which sought the primordial father (the origin), however, being its own murder. In my studies on logic as that way of reasoning that brings together in one thinking and being, physics is considered the epitome of that logic that bespeaks of, and submits the world to, measurement and calculus. It is the logic of modernity. Physics is controlled by classical Aristotelian logic, but as such it longs for the terms of the previous logic, the theologic dialectic of the one-in-trinity. Therefore, its main constituents have been mass (M), space (L), and time (T). For further explanation see Sampaio, Lógica Ressucitada, Rio de Janeiro, Eduerj, 2000.
3. ACCIARRI et al. Higgs Candidates in $e^+e^-$ Interations at $\sqrt{s}$=206.6 Gev. CERN-EP-2000-140. The value presently estimated by the physicists of CERN for the mass of the particle of Higgs is about 109 Gev. As this particle is being produced in association with a weak boson Z0, whose mass is 92 Gev, it is necessary a minimum energy of 211 Gev, to permit all this to work fine. This energy is about to be reached by the currently working LEP, notwithstanding, it is being dismounted to be substituted by the more potent LHC.
4. Em razão de anomalias encontradas na força gravitacional newtoniana (ainda discutíveis) especula-se que elas pudessem provir de uma quinta força; entretanto, isto é uma bem outra estória. WITKOWSKI, N., Dictionnaire de la Physique – atoms et particules, Paris, Albin Michel, 2000, pp. 87-89
5. Grandezas físicas cujas fórmulas dimensionais difiram apenas em alguma potências da fórmula dimensional da velocidade (LT-1)n são similares, isto é, apenas modos de uma mesma coisa. Ora, spin (MT), cliname (ML-1), e massa (M), multiplicados pelo quadrado da velocidade (LT-1)2 dão, respectivamente, momento angular(ML2T-1)), força (MLT-2), e energia (ML2T-2). É fácil perceber que as últimas três reproduzem “deslocada” a estrutura que já nos ficou conhecida: ser-o-mesmo (I), ser-com-outro (D) e a síntese dialética de ambos (I/D).
6. O vácuo como um fundo geométrico para entes físicos é insustentável. Qualquer saber ôntico de X precisa escamotear sua própria problemática ontológica: por que há X e não tão apenas Nada? Em matemática isto é bem evidente: o zero é o sinal que oculta o Nada (de número em geral); o conjunto vazio oculta o Nada (de conjunto); a operação identidade oculta o Nada (operatório), e assim por diante. Por isso precisam ser definidos paradoxalmente, como o número que não conta, o elemento que difere de si mesmo, a operação que nada faz. Da mesma maneira, na física precisamos do zero-físico ou vácuo para escamotear o Nada (físico), e sua definição terá que ser a paradoxal negação da essencialidade física, ou seja, da materialidade ou, ainda com maior exatidão, precisa ser definido – tal como fizemos – como o “ente físico” desprovido de spin, cliname e massa. A idéia de flutuação do vácuo precisa ter bem isto em conta, para não estar a escamotear a própria escamoteação que na origem se fez ...
7. Truly, it is not a veritable exception because it is a logical necessity to compensate the fact that the Higgs boson does not absolutely have spin. All particles with spin zero, in reality, have internal spins anti-parallel, so that they can occasionally disintegrate in particles pairs, but this is not the case of the particle of Higgs. Thus, all kinds of particle can, in the last instance, be reduced to these two essential particles – the neutrino of the electron and the particle of Higgs. In the partition of the fundamental attributes of materiality between the essential fermion and the essential boson, there is one single solution preserving the logical symmetry: at one side, the fermion stays with the spin (1/2) (sameness, I) and the cliname (being-with-other, D) while, at other side, the boson stays with the mass (dialectics, synthesis of identity and difference I/D).
8. The speed of light in the vacuum (c) represents a compromise between time (T) and space (L); the Planck constant (h) (divided by c2), a compromise between mass (M) and time (1/frequency) (T). A propósito, o físico Gilles COHEN-TANNOUDJI em seu livro Les Consantes Universelles, Paris, Hachette, 1998, defende a idéia que as constantes representam comprometimentos ou limitações de natureza epistemológica, mas não ontológica (ôntica, melhor se diria), como nós pretendemos. O interessante é que ele mesmo diz não encontrar a razão como isto possa valer para uma delas (sendo elas já tão poucas!) – justamente a constante gravitacional G! Ele não a encontra porque o comprometimento não foi posto, como devia, por Newton (é só lembrar a noção de ponto material!), nem depois por Einstein. See SAMPAIO, L. S. C. de Lógica das constantes universais. Rio de Janeiro, UAB, 1997.
9. EINSTEIN, Albert. On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses published in the Annals of Mathematics 40 (4), October, 1939.
10. Afora as fortes evidencias circunstanciais de que assim pensasse, dispomos a mais hoje do testemunho comprobatório de Freeman Dyson: But Einstein never acknowldge his brainchild. Einstein was not merely skeptical, he was actively hostile to the idea of black holes. He thought that black hole solution was a blemish to be removed from his theory by a better mathematical formulation, not a consequence to be tested by observation. The Scientist as rebel, New York Review of Books, 25, 1995, p. 32. A primeira frase desta citação serve ainda para mostrar que Dyson acompanhava os acontecimentos mas não tinha a menor idéia das razões profundas que estavam por trás deles.
11. OPPENHEIMER, J. R. and SNYDER, H. S. On continued gravitational contraction, Phys. Rev., 56, 455,1939. O mesmo Dyson, citado na nota anterior, assevera que o próprio Oppenheimer, na sua maturidade, mostrou-se igualmente desinteressado de sua grande “descoberta”.
12. The cliname directly determines the escape speed. In the case of a sphere with mass M and radius R, the superficial cliname is a = M/R and the square of the escape speed on its surface is ve2 = 2G.a.
13. Do ponto de vista teórico esta postulação é quase um truísmo; já do ponto de vista empírico, ela é uma evidência, pois em todo o Universo apenas as estrelas de nêutrons se aproximam deste valor (ou o igualam?!). Ademais, com este postulado Newton ficaria livre do dissabor de ver, nos fenômenos de choque, seus “pontos materiais” se colarem para toda a eternidade!
Não se deve estranhar a expressão cliname de Plank, como não se estranhou outras grandezas ditas de Planck, com as quais ele nada teve diretamente a ver. Trata-se em tudo isso de uma justa homenagem a um físico maiúsculo e não de um significante genérico para designar entidades minúsculas.
14. Tal inconsistência de fato aparece, pois torna-se possível provocar uma catástrofe irreversível por meio apenas de uma “moderada” mudança de referencial (velocidade v finitamente menor do que c). Isto vem justificar ainda mais fortemente que o postulado limitador do cliname seja introduzido já na gravitação newtoniana; não o sendo, a Relatividade Restrita torna-se inconsistente, e não temos mais uma justificativa para propô-la como componente de uma teoria que a viesse englobar. See SAMPAIO, L. S. C. de, A Força gravitacional e os buracos negros, Rio de Janeiro, 1993/1998.
15. SAMPAIO, L. S. C. de, A força gravitacional e os buracos negros, op. cit..
16. ibid. This figure corresponds to a particle with an equivalent mass of 1,4 Tev (1400 Gev), not 109 Gev, as is being searched by the CERN staff (see note 3 above). Para nossa estimativa foram tomados mZo= 91,177 Gev e mW = 80,42 Gev.
17. Voltar à nota 3.
18. All books on Physics ascribe spin 2 for the graviton, but, oddly they ignore the theoretical studies showing that this imputation is untenable, and that this is also valid for spins 0 and 1. 18. É só pensar um pouquinho: precisa-se muito do spin 2 para diferençar o graviton do gluon (de spin 1) e, não se reconhecendo a existência em si da grandeza cliname, precisa-se destemperadamente atribuir-lhe algum spin para diferençá-lo de um puro fantasma!
19. This word does not seem excessive to us because of the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, which, in our view, put in great difficulty the notion of a purely geometric universe, correlated to the notion of an “absolute relativity”. Além do mais, que se estará efetivamente perdendo se “we have, as yet, no exact feature of general relativity that has been confirmed by observation; and none appears feasible in the foreseeable future”? Em se duvidando, ver CHANDRASEKAHR, S. Truth and Beauty – Aesthetics and Motivations in Science. Chicago, Un. of Chicago Pr., 1990, p. 149.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário