sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alan Lightman, Edward Tryon, Preferred frame, Superfluid vacuum theory

A Proposed SUSY Alternative (SUSYA) based on a new type of seesawDrăgoi mechanism; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY;applicable Article no.PSIJ.57825 to

all elementary particles and predicting a new type of aether theory

Short Research Article

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a potentially viable “out-of-the-box” alternative (called “SUSYA”) to the currently known (SUSY) theory variants: SUSYA essentially proposes a new type of seesaw mechanism (SMEC) applicable to all elementary particles (EPs) and named “Z-SMEC”; Z-SMEC is a new type of charge-based symmetry/”conjugation” between EPs which predicts the zero/non-zero rest of all known/unknown EPs, EPs that are “conjugated” in boson- pairs sharing the same electromagnetic charge (EMC). Z-SMEC is actually derived from an extended zero- hypothesis (eZEH) which is essentially a conservation principle applied on zero-energy (assigned to the ground state of ) that mainly states a general quadratic equation governing a form of ex-nihilo creation and having a pair of conjugate boson-fermion mass solutions for each set of given coefficients. eZEH proposes a general formula for all the rest masses of all EPs from , also indicating the true existence of the and a possible bijective connection between the three types of neutrinos (all predicted to be actually Majorana ) and the massless bosons (, gluon and the hypothetical graviton), between the electron/ and the W boson, predicting at least three generations of leptoquarks (LQs) (defined here as the “mass-conjugates” of the three known generations of quarks) and predicting two distinct types of neutral massless fermions (NMFs) (modelled as mass-conjugates of the and Z boson respectively) which may be plausible constituents for a hypothetical lightest possible (hot fermionic) (LPDM) or, even more plausible, the main constituents of a superfluid fermionic vacuum/aether, as also proposed by the notorious (SVT) (in which the physical vacuum is modeled as a bosonic/fermionic superfluid). SUSYA also predicts two hypothetical bosons defined as the ultra-heavy bosonic mass-conjugates of the muon and tauon called here the “W-muonic boson” (Wmb) and the “W- tauonic boson” (Wtb) respectively: Wmb and Wtb are predicted much heavier than the W boson and the Higgs boson so that Wmb and Wtb can be regarded as ultra-heavy charged Higgs bosons with their huge predicted rest defining the energy scale at which the electroweak field (EWF) may be unified with the Higgs field (HF).

Keywords: supersymmetry (SUSY); SUSY alternative (SUSYA); electromagnetic charge (EMC); charge-based mass symmetry/conjugation; extended zero-energy hypothesis (eZEH); conservation principle applied on zero-energy; elementary particles (EPs); “conjugated” boson-fermion pairs; leptoquarks (LQs); neutral massless fermions (NMFs); lightest possible (hot fermionic) dark matter (LPDM); superfluid fermionic vacuum/ether; Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT);

Table of abbreviations used in boson, as defined by this QE SUSYA) this paper QED HF Higgs field QFT

hMC(s) heavier mass-conjugate(s) QTE effect AT aether theory as defined by this SUSYA

HUP Heisenberg’s uncertainty SB symmetry breaking BB principle SB-SUSY spontaneously broken BH(s) (s) SUSY variants

LA “” SDM scalar dark matter CBFP conjugated boson-fermion LPDM lightest possible (hot SFF superfluid fermionic field pair fermionic) dark matter SM the Standard model of CE characteristic/determinantal LQ(s) leptoquark(s) of this types particle (quadratic) equation (of a (proposed by SUSYA): matrix / characteristic SMEC seesaw mechanism uLQ (up-leptoquark), dLQ polynomial of a matrix) SMEC-1 type-1 seesaw mechanism (down-leptoquark), cLQ CEP(s) (electromagnetically) SP superpartner particle (as (charm-leptoquark), sLQ defined by SUSY) charged elementary (strange-leptoquark), tLQ particle(s) SRT theory (top-leptoquark) and bLQ SUSY supersymmetry (theories) CP characteristic polynomial (bottom-leptoquark) SUSYA SUSY-alternative (a theory (of a matrix) CPO composite (/non- alternative to the currently MBH(s) micro(/ quantum) black known supersymmetry elementary) physical object hole(s) DM dark matter theories) MC(s) mass-conjugate(s) as SV superfluid vacuum/aether defined by this SUSYA EFE Einstein’s field equations SVT superfluid vacuum theory min minimum (energetic EGR Einstein’s minimum etc) EGSM electro-gravitational seesaw tn tau neutrino MM Michelson–Morley mechanism (proposed by (experiment) ULDM ultra-light dark matter this SUSYA) mn muon neutrino

EGT(s) entropic theory(ies) MN(s) Majorana neutrino(s) eHUP an extension of VEP(s) virtual elementary MSSM Minimal Supersymmetric particle(s) Heisenberg’s uncertainty Standard Model VPAP(s) -antiparticle principle (proposed by this SUSYA) pair(s) NAPRF non-absolute preferred EMC electromagnetic charge VSGF very strong gravitational reference frame field (proposed/predicted by EMF electromagnetic field NDBD neutrinoless double beta en electron neutrino this SUSYA to manifest at decay scales) EP(s) (s) NEP(s) (electromagnetically) ESR Einstein’s special relativity neutral elementary WILP(s) weakly-interacting lightest EWF electroweak field particle(s) eZEH an extended zero-energy particle(s) NMF(s) neutral massless fermion(s) Wmb (a hypothetical) “W-muonic hypothesis proposed by this NMF-SV NMF-based superfluid SUSYA boson” proposed by this vacuum/aether SUSYA nzrm non-zero rest mass(es) (of FSA fermionic superfluid aether WPD -particle duality elementary particles) Wtb (a hypothetical) “W-tauonic FSC fine structure constant (the electromagnetic running boson” proposed by this ObU observable universe SUSYA coupling constant at rest) OMME original Michelson–Morley FTG Fatio/Le Sage theory of experiment Zb(s) Z-boson(s) gravitation ZEH a zero-energy hypothesis pBB(Q)S pre-Big Bang (quasi-) proposed by this SUSYA GF gravitational field singularity (as defined by gl gluon ZEUH zero-energy universe this SUSYA) hypothesis gr a (hypothetical massless) ph photon Zf “Z-fermion” (the mass- graviton (proposed by PO(s) physical object(s) SUSYA conjugate of the Z boson, as defined by this SUSYA) GU(T) grand unification (theories) q quark(s) of all known types: Z-SMEC a universal seesaw GW(s) (s) uq (up-quark), dq (down- mechanism (as based on a Z

quark), cq (charm-quark), sq matrix) proposed by this Hb(s) Higgs boson(s) (strange-quark), tq (top- SUSYA Hf “Higgs fermion” (the mass- quark) and bq (bottom- conjugate of the Higgs quark)

2

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

1. A ZERO-ENERGY HYPOTHESIS (ZEH) experimental data supporting the true existence of any APPLIED ON VIRTUAL PARTICLE- SP of any known EP. ANTIPARTICLE PAIRS (VPAPs) This paper partially and briefly recapitulates and continues the work from another recently published 1.1 Introduction on supersymmetry (SUSY) article by the same author [3] by proposing a theories potentially viable “out-of-the-box” SUSY alternative (“SUSYA”) to the currently known SUSY variants: Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a conjectured SUSYA a new type of charge-based mass symmetry defined as a bijective pairing symmetry/”conjugation” between EPs which predicts between the two main groups of elementary particles the zero/non-zero rest masses of all known/unknown (EPs): (spin-1) bosons and (spin-1/2) fermions. In EPs, EPs that are “conjugated” in boson-fermion pairs SUSY, each EP from one group would have an sharing the same electromagnetic charge (EMC). associated EP in the other (called its “superpartner” SUSYA is based on an extended zero-energy [SP]), the spin of which differs by 1/2. The “standard” hypothesis (eZEH) which is essentially a SUSY defines these SPs to be new and undiscovered conservation principle applied on zero-energy EPs: for example, SUSY predicts the existence of a (assigned to the ground state of vacuum) that mainly bosonic EP called "selectron" (defined as the SP of states a general quadratic equation having a pair of the electron) [1]; the hypothetical/predicted fermionic conjugate boson-fermion mass solutions for each set SPs of the known bosons are named with the “-ino” of given coefficients. eZEH proposes a general suffix (and are generically named “bosinos”, e.g. formula for all the rest masses of all EPs from gluino is defined as the fermionic SP of the gluon). Standard model, also indicating the true existence of The simplest SUSY variants are the "unbroken"- the graviton and a possible bijective connection SUSY variants which predict that any pair of SPs between the three types of neutrinos and the massless would share the same mass and the same internal bosons (photon, gluon and the hypothetical graviton), quantum numbers (besides spin!): however, the most between the electron/positron and the W boson, viable/plausible SUSY variants are the spontaneously predicting at least three generations of leptoquarks broken SUSY variants (SB-SUSY) allowing SPs to (LQs) (defined here as the “mass-conjugates” of the differ in their rest masses. There are also extended three known generations of quarks) and predicting SUSY variants which allow at least two SPs for a two distinct types of neutral massless fermions given known fermionic/bosonic EP. Some SPs are (NMFs) (modelled as mass-conjugates of the Higgs predicted to have rest masses at least 3 orders of boson and Z boson respectively) which may be magnitude larger (from few TeV up to hundreds of plausible constituents for a hypothetical lightest GeV) than their corresponding known EPs: that is possible (hot fermionic) dark matter (LPDM) or, even why recreating these SPs in the present LHC would more plausible, the main constituents of a superfluid be a difficult task [2]. fermionic vacuum/aether, as also proposed by the If ever proved to be valid, SB-SUSY variants notorious Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT) (with may help solve many problems of the Standard model various variants in which the physical vacuum is (SM), including the , gauge modeled as a either a bosonic or fermionic coupling unification, dark matter etc.: however, none superfluid). of the known SB-SUSY variants has any direct and/or indirect experimental evidence/support so far. If any 1.3 A proposed zero-energy hypothesis (ZEH) SP (of any known EP) will ever be found in the future, its rest mass would indicate the scale at which 1.3.1. An introduction on ZEH and the main SUSY is broken. statement of ZEH

1.2 Motivating Points on this SUSY-alternative SUSYA is mainly based on a zero-energy (SUSYA) hypothesis (ZEH) applied on any virtual particle- antiparticle pair (VPAP) popping out from the Although very appealing at first (and still quite quantum vacuum at hypothetical length scales interesting and seductive theory which may offer comparable to Planck scale: ZEH was already important explanations to notorious problems in launched by the author in a previous article [3]. ZEH modern physics, like the hierarchy problem for can be regarded as an extension of the notorious zero- example), the currently known SUSY variants have energy universe hypothesis (ZEUH) which was failed in gaining acceptance and lost a significant actually first proposed by the German theoretical number of their initial supporters by the persistent (as recounted by the failure in all the repetitive attempts to find Russian-American theoretical physicist George Gamow in his autobiography called “My World Line”

3

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

[4]) and first independently developed and published as being the approximate distance under which as a scientific article in journal many years charged EPs cannot have rest masses/energies valued later by the American physicist Edward Tryon [5], with real numbers. For example and more −1 assuming minimal (thus an specifically, for qe= , rl/= 11.71 almost/practically flat spacetime) at Planck scale (like min Pl 0 also presumed by Einstein’s General relativity [EGR] ke2 when calculating the equations of geodesics by e −1 with 0 =( 137 ) being the fine calculus, a sine-qua-non condition for EGR to remain c valid down to those scales). Presuming the structure constant (FSC) (the value of the gravitational and electrostatic inverse-square laws to electromagnetic running coupling constant at rest). be valid down to Planck scales and considering a Both generic xm= conjugated solutions of the VPAP composed from two electromagnetically- previous equation (3) indicate that, because m has charged EPs (CEPs) each with non-zero rest mass m discrete values only, (and implicitly) and 2 g Eg e and energy Em = mc , electromagnetic charge q (and implicitly) should all have discrete values and negative energies of gravitational attraction Eq 2 E=− Gm/ r [6] and electrostatic attraction only. More interestingly, for neutral EPs (NEPs) with g 2 (which implies ) and 2 q = 0(C) geq = 0 Eqe=− k q/ r , ZEH specifically states that: r r( 0 m) , xm= solutions may take both: min

(1) 20EEEm+ g + q = (1) non-zero positive values 2 4 2 This equation (1) essentially governs (and quantizes) m+ =( c + c) /gg = 2 c /(  0 kg ) (like an ex-nihilo creation process of VPAPs. Defining the in the case of all three types of neutrinos, the Z boson ratios g = Gr/ and ee= kr/ the previous and the Higgs boson) AND equation is equivalent to the following simple 24 (2) zero values m− = c − c/0g = kg quadratic equation with unknown xm(= ) : ( ) (like in the case of the gluon and the photon which 2 2 2 both have zero rest mass m(= 0 kg) and are gex−(20 c) x + q = (2) assigned only relativistic mass/energy by the Standard model). The previous equation is easily solvable and has two It is also very important to notice that the possible solutions which are both positive reals if solutions (3) of the main equation (2) of ZEH 42 cqge 0 : strikingly resembles to the solutions proposed by type-1 seesaw mechanism (SMEC-1)

22 2 4 2 BBM+4 c− cge q x = , which are the conjugated mx(==) (3) 2 g solutions of the characteristic/determinantal 22 (quadratic) equation (CE) x− xB − M = 0 42 The realness condition cqge 0 implies the derived from the characteristic polynomial (CP) existence of a minimum (and mass-independent!) A' (= x  I2 − A) of the 2x2 symmetrical matrix distance between any two EPs (composing the same 21− 0 M VPAP) rmin = q Gke / c 10 lPl (for A =  (with B being the Majorana mass MB q e,, 12 e  e and with l being the (e)  33 Pl component of the neutrinos and M being the Dirac Planck length): obviously, for distances lower than mass component of the neutrinos) [7]. CP is the polynomial which is invariant under matrix similarity r the previous equation has only imaginary min and has the eigenvalues of A as roots; solutions xm= for any charged EP; by this fact, ZEH offers a new interpretation of the Planck length,

4

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

10 g (= G /r) ratio, thus by strength of the I2 =  is the 2x2 identity matrix with 1- 01 gravitational field (measured by a possibly values on the main diagonal and 0-values on the variable/scale-dependent G scalar) possibly varying secondary diagonal). This very important aspect of with the length scale r when approaching eZEH is detailed later on in the subsection of this rl10−1 . paper dedicated to the three known generations of min ( Pl ) neutrinos. It is also important to notice that equation (3) of eZEH does not allow the existence of 1.3.2. A proposed extended ZEH (eZEH), defined electromagnetically charged EPs with zero rest-mass, as the “core” of SUSYA thus doesn’t allow the existence of elementary Weyl fermions. This more “ambitious” extended ZEH (eZEH) Important remark. In other words, formula (3) (proposed by SUSYA and defined as its “core”) is allows NEPs to be divided in two major families actually a stronger/stricter conjecture than ZEH (NEPs with non-zero rest mass and NEPs possessing because eZEH assumes and applies the main equation only relativistic mass) which is an indirect proof that of ZEH (3) not only on virtual particle-antiparticle m is a function of q (as requested/imposed by q ) pairs (VPAPs) but also on specific boson-fermion and not vice-versa, as if the q quantum also imposes pairs which share the same zero/non-zero fixed/discrete gradients electromagnetic charge (EMC) and which are defined between various and coined by eZEH as “mass-conjugates” (MCs): m = m21 − m( 0 kg) = f( q) these MCs (with distinct zero/non-zero rest masses, types of generic EPs (“1” and “2”). eZEH additionally but sharing the same EMC) are the SUSYA-proposed states that the two conjugated elementary mass alternative to the concept of partner-superpartner pair 2 4 2 (or vice versa) used in SUSY. Furthermore, eZEH not solutions m =( c  c −g  e q ) /  g (of only defines various MCs, but also states that the eZEH’s main equation) actually define a boson- heavier MC can always decay into its lighter MC fermion pair (with conjugated masses) called here partner plus other EPs in respect to the energy “conjugated boson-fermion pair” (CBFP). eZEH conservation principle: however, the decay of a actually conjectures a new type of boson-fermion heavier MC (hMC) into its lighter MC is stated to not symmetry/”mass-conjugation” based on eZEH’s main always be the single mode in which that hMC decays. quadratic equation (with partially unknown eZEH additionally (co-)states/conjectures that: if coefficients): eZEH mainly predicts two distinct types a specific bosonic EP is its own antiparticle (like in of massless neutral fermions (modelled as conjugates the case of the photon, the gluon, the Z boson and the of the Higgs boson and Z boson respectively) with Higgs boson) then its (mass-)conjugated fermionic zero charge and zero rest mass (which couple only partner is also its antiparticle, thus it is actually a gravitationally and thus may be plausibly the main Majorana fermion; in other words, “being its own constituents of dark matter or even the constituents of antiparticle” is thus a property conjectured by a hypothetical fermionic superfluid aether/vacuum), a eZEH/SUSYA to be shared by both MCs. eZEH bijective mass-conjugation between the three types of establishes some interesting symmetries (called neutrinos and the massless bosons (gluon, photon and "conjugations") between some known bosonic EPs the hypothetical graviton), a relation of mass- and fermionic EPs, but also between some known ± bosonic EPs and some predicted still unknown conjugation between the electron/positron and the W fermionic EPs and between some known fermionic boson and at least three generations of leptoquarks EPs and some predicted still unknown bosonic EPs. (LQs) (defined here as the “mass-conjugates” of the Similarly to SUSY, eZEH additionally states that three known generations of quarks) (see next). each pair of MCs actually resulted from a broken- symmetry of a (bosonic) field quantized by a boson 1.3.3. The other equations of eZEH with much higher rest energy-mass that the rest- masses/energies of those two MCs (composing that The alternative variant of the main quadratic MCs pair). equation of eZEH and its implications. In the case 22 of a virtual (charged) particle-antiparticle pair The c//g (= rc G) ratio is redefined as a (VPAP) (with total rest mass 2m and total rest “center” of mass-symmetry/conjugation between any 2 energy 22Em = mc ) produced by a photon with two MCs proposed by SUSYA (as based on its eZEH), which “center” is mainly determined by

5

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

wavelength  and relativistic energy 2 2 2 1 eq 2 eq 2 r kqe E== hc/2 E , equation (1) becomes:  <=>  <=>  <=> ph m  hc  c  c EEE+ + = 0 ph gq 2 2 (1’) 2 r ( q/ e) ke  e up to: (20EEEm + g + q = )  c 2 Defining the same ratios  = Gr/ and 2 r ( q/ e) g   (3’’)  0  = kr/ the previous equation is equivalent to an ee even simpler quadratic equation with unknown The previous equation (3’’) offers a new : xm(= ) interpretation of FSC (0 ) which can be redefined as the lower bound imposed by nature for the 22 2 gex+(  q − hc /0 ) = (2’) 2 r ( q/ e) adimensional ratio  = to allow the r  The previous equation is easily solvable and has existence of elementary rest masses measured by real two possible solutions which are both reals (with one numbers, with r(min) = 0 . Although this last 2 being a positive real) only if hc/0−e q : formula (3’’) has the disadvantage to not allow the estimation of that minimum (and mass-independent!) distance between any two EPs (composing the same hc/ − q2 21− e VPAP) r= q Gke / c 10 l (obtained mx(=) =  (3’) min ( Pl ) g from formula 3), but, instead, it offers a new important and fundamental interpretation of FSC From the previous formula (3’) it is obvious that, indicating that FSC has a profound important a for elementary rest masses m to take only gravitational/entropic significance also (at least as interpreted by this eZEH-based SUSYA): more discrete/quantized values,  , e and g should all specifically  can be redefined as an adimensional have only discrete values, at least in the interval of 0 length scales close/comparable to threshold of vacuum which needs to be surpassed so 21− that a high energy photon to can create fermionic rmin = q Gke / c( 10 lPl ) (scales at which mass (that can couple gravitationally and generate a charged EPs are predicted to pop out from vacuum as negative Eg scalar) in form of charged VPAPs. VPAPs). Furthermore (and for qe ), by replacing r with The realness condition hc/0− q2 e rmin in formula (3’’) we may easily obtain the 2 approximate spectrum of minimum photonic (hc// ke q r) can be written as a function wavelengths  r , that can create a of the fine structure constant (FSC)/ alpha constant min min e 2 charged VPAP in our universe: kee −1 2 0 =( 137 ) (the value of the c 2 rmin ( q/ e) e = electromagnetic running coupling constant at rest) by  0 (4) succesive reduction of both terms (until obtaining  0 2 rmin as the right term of the inequality) to e ( 860rlmin  86 Pl ) 0 with <=>

6

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

regarded as the equation of a logarithmic spiral with <=>  10−12ll ,10 (4’) min Pl Pl ku and an average (av) minimum photonic wavelength: radius R( u) = a e (with a and k being non-

(4’’) zero real constants) and with R u== m f  , min(av)lrPl ( 10 min) ) ( ) ( )

c 2 a = , k =−(q/ e) and the variable angle Based on the inequality (3’’), eZEH also predicts G that, for qC= 0 , the generalized ratio  2 0 2 r ( q/ e) (measured in radians) ur=( / ) 2 . r (qr,, ) = is zero thus 2 q/ e  ( ) If interpreted as a non-coincidence, the previous 0Cr , ,= 0 doesn’t satisfy the inequality r ( )( ) inequality (4-vi) suggests/indicates that the nzrm of EPs (with nzrm) depends inverse-proportionally with (3’’) r (qr,, )   : that is why, eZEH 0 the strength of the gravitational field (GF) (measured predicts/confirms that cannot create pairs of by big G scalar) at those r -scales (comparable to neutral fermions, but only pairs of charged fermions Planck scale) so that: a stronger GF (measured by (which obviously couple electromagnetically): larger big G values at r scales, thus larger implicitly and in as a checkpoint conclusion, photons are predicted by eZEH/SUSYA to can only generate g (= Gr/ ) ratios) “rips” photons in “lighter pairs of EPs to which they can couple pieces” (allowing only smaller rest-masses for any EP electromagnetically (thus only pairs of charged EPs). with nzrm) AND a weaker GF allows larger nzrm for * any EP at those same scales (this simple principle An important parentheses. The author has also also applies to macrocosm where the weak GF at reported in a past article [8] that large/macrocosmic scales allows for very large celestial bodies to exist and the predicted c  log  1  0.2 (with m and progressively stronger GF at microcosmic scales 02( ) x Gmxy m allows for only physical objects with very small mass  to exist, like in the case of EPs); this fact also suggests my being the non-zero rest masses [nzrm] of any that nzrm may have a “secret” geometrical meaning “encoded” in a possible quantum structure of two identical or distinct EPs with nzrm) which, spacetime vacuum at those scales (as already combined with inequality (3’’) and applied to any explained and detailed in the previous article of the VPAP (composed from two EPs with nzrm author [3]). mxy== m m ), implies that: * Returning to equation (3’) 2  2 r ( q/ e) c hc/ − q2 log2  (4-iii) e  Gm2 m = , because the elementary g

The previous inequality (4’’’) is actually rest masses mf= () take only discrete/quantized equivalent to these ones: values, the generalized (wave)length functions 2 2 2r( q/e) /  c r( q) = q Gk/ c and e  (4-iv) min e Gm2 2 2rqmin ( )( q/ e)   (q) = obviously can take 2 c  m  2 (4-v) 0 2r( q/e) / Ge only quantized values as long as the electromagnetic charge q e,, 12 e  e is known to take only 2  33  c −r(q/e) / me (4-vi) quantized values: these discretely-valued generalized G (wave)length functions rqmin ( ) and  (q) strongly suggest that space is actually quantized/granular The exponential function represented by the right term of the previous inequality (4-vi) can be also around Planck scale and

7

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

allows only discrete distances between EPs (of the 16 =Gr 2 10 G : same VPAP) at those scales. Implicitly, SUSYA GrZb(=  g( Zb ) min ) Hb( g( Hb ) min ) predicts a spacetime vacuum with two main essential based on these huge predicted lower bounds for big G features: (1) granular/quantized structure around values at Planck scales, eZEH states that E may Planck scales and (2) “ex-nihilo” creation of VPAPs g reach the same magnitude as at those same Planck scales measure by rqmin ( ) Eq and  q . 22 ( ) (Eg E q  g m  e q ) at scales For the beginning, let us start to estimate the comparable to Planck scale, which implies a variabile values of g for the known electromagnetically- big G GGGvar  , Hb/ Zb which may significantly neutral EP (NEP). For q = 0(C) , the conjugated 16 increase (up to 10 G and possibly larger values) solutions expressed by formula (3) simplify for any with the drop of length scale down to 22 NEP such as m= c c / , resulting NEP ( ) g . 22 g() NEP =(c c) / mNEP . Because Hb and Zb are their own antiparticles, their eZEH-predicted mass conjugates Hf and Zf are

also defined (and predicted) by SUSYA to actually be 1.3.4. Two predicted types of neutral massless their own particles thus to be massless Majorana fermions (NMFs) proposed as candidate fermions. Because Zb is a spin-1 vector boson, constituents of a predicted fermionic superfluid SUSYA also defines its mass-conjugate Zf as being a aether/vacuum (SV) Majorana vector-fermion. Because Hb is a scalar

boson, SUSYA also defines its mass-conjugate Hf as Focusing on Higgs boson and Z boson and being a Majorana scalar-fermion. Being both their eZEH-predicted correspondent/conjugated fermions, Zf and Hf are also stated by SUSYA to neutral massless fermions (NMFs) which may obey Pauli’s exclusion principle. Regarding the Zfs compose a so-called (fermionic) superfluid (vector-fermions), the left-handed Zfs are stated to aether/vacuum. In a first step and defining the unit of form isospin doublets, while the right-handed Zf are 2 2−− 2 1 measure of g (= 2/cm) as u= m s kg , stated to form isospin singlets (like all the other vector-fermions from the Standard Model). eZEH directly estimates g for the Z boson (Zb) and In a checkpoint conclusion, Hf and Zf are thus Higgs boson (Hb) (with both Zb and Hb having non- massless Majorana fermions (aka massless Majorana zero rest energies) such as neutrinos) which, like any massless neutrino in a 3+1- 2 42 dimensional quantum field theory, can be described g() Zb(=2c / m Zb ) 10 u and either as a theory of a massless four-component Majorana fermion [the zero mode of the Majorana 2 41 g() Hb(=2c / m Hb )  8  10 u . eZEH states fermion] or a theory of a two-component massless Weyl fermion: these two formulations are that both Zb and Hb have two distinct indistinguishable, as they arise from exactly the same correspondent/conjugated massless neutral fermions Lagrangian when expressed in terms of two- formally called the “Z fermion” (Zf) (which shares component fermions; in other words, a massless 42 the same g() Zb (10 u) with Zb) and the “Higgs neutrino can be modeled either as a Majorana neutrino or a Weyl neutrino [9]. In some variants of SUSY fermion” (Hf) (which shares the same massless Majorana fermions (like Hf and Zf) are 41 considered hypothetical “natural” superpartners of gb(H ) (8 10 u) with Hb) with zero rest neutral spin-1 or spin-0 bosonic EPs, as also proposed 22 by this SUSYA: since the three known generations of masses mZf=( c − c) /0 g() Zb ( = kg) and neutrinos have been found to have non-zero rest 22 m= c − c/0 ( = kg) (thus both masses, Hf and Zf both partially save SUSY by Hf( ) g(H b ) replacing it with this SUSYA: furthermore (as moving with the in vacuum and explained in the next sections of this paper), the three possessing only relativistic masses instead of rest known generations of neutrinos are proposed by masses). Based on the previously defined SUSYA to be actually the mass conjugates of the −1 rl10 , we then obtain photon, the gluon and a hypothetical graviton. min ( Pl ) An electron and such a massless Majorana neutrino (like Hf and Zf) can actually interact (but

8

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

only locally) via charged-W exchange (as W boson standardly regarded in the past as plausible has a very short mean lifetime and mediates only local constituents of the dark matter [13]): by contrast, Zf interactions at very low length scales comparable to and Hf are actually defined by SUSYA as “weakly- −15 the size of a proton/neutron of about 10 m ). Note interacting lightest particles” (“WILPs”) which are stated by SUSYA to interact only (and very weakly!) that in a Standard Model with a massless neutrino, via gravitational force/field (by their very low but there is no right-handed neutrino. The existence of a non-zero relativistic energy which couples conserved lepton number in the theory with massless gravitationally). neutrinos is the reason one usually favors the Weyl Hf and Zf are stated by SUSYA to may even over the Majorana form of the theory. compose a hypothetical “lightest possible (fermionic Like all Majorana fermions (which posses only hot) dark matter” (“LPDM”), which is even lighter positive/negative helicity which coincides with than the so-called ultra-light dark matter (ULDM) chirality for massless spinors), Hf and Zf are also which is a class of bosonic dark matter (DM) models stated by SUSYA to cannot possess intrinsic electric where the hypothetical DM is stated to be composed or magnetic moments, but only toroidal moments (a of bosons with non-zero rest energies in the interval consequence of their helicity) and that is why they  −22 minimally interact with the electromagnetic field 10 eV,1eV ) (which bosons may form a Bose- (which makes them potential candidates for identified with a Hf/Zf-based superfluid aether Einstein condensate or a superfluid on galactic scales) and even candidates for cold dark matter if/when [14]. LPDM was previously called “hot” because Zf agglutinating in larger clumps of Hfs and Zfs with co- and Hf are defined as being massless neutral centered circular trajectories) [10, 11]. fermions, thus moving at the speed of light in vacuum SUSYA defines Hfs and Zfs to be maximally (from where the “hot” attributed comes from, in the stable and to can not decay (thus with practically sense of “very fast/mobile”). infinite lifetimes): more exactly, Hfs and Zfs are Even more ambitiously, SUSYA proposes Zf and stated to be actually the final ultra-stable products of Hf as plausible main constituents of a superfluid various possible decays of heavier EPs (mainly the fermionic vacuum/aether, as also proposed by the decays of their heavier mass-conjugates). notorious Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT) (in which Furthermore, SUSYA retrodicts that the Big Bang the physical vacuum is modeled as a would had mainly and firstly produced Hfs and Zfs bosonic/fermionic superfluid). Furthermore (and due (two types of very weakly interacting EPs) in huge to Pauli exclusion principle), this hypothetical quantities which compose a superfluid aether (SA) (Zf&Hf-based) fermionic superfluid aether (FSA) identified with our 3D non-empty space (as explained (proposed by SUSYA) may not be infinitely later in this section). In this way, SUSYA actually compressible (to an infinite density) which suggests retrodicts a pre-Big-Bang singularity which may had that a FSA-based pre-Big Bang singularity (pBBS), if generated both spacetime (identified with this Hf/Zf- it existed, may not had been a true gravitational based SA) and all EP-based physical objects (playing singularity, but only a gravitational quasi-singularity various “actor”-like “roles” on this aetherial with a large but finite density (as also detailed in the spacetime “scene” identified with SA): this approach next sections of this paper). of SUSYA has some similarities with a special type of The ultimate goal of SVT is to offer a common TOE () called ”Causal fermion frame for unifying quantum with general system“ (firstly introduced by Felix Finster and relativity: that is why SVT can be regarded as both a collaborators) which derives both spacetime and the candidate theory for and also an objects therein as secondary objects from the extension of the Standard Model (SM); SVT aims to structures of an underlying causal fermion system model all known interactions and elementary particles [12]. (EPs) as different manifestations of the same These eZEH-predicted neutral massless superfluid vacuum/aether. However, SUSYA is (Majorana) fermions (NMFs) Zf and Hf are also quite slightly different from SVT, because SUSYA actually distinct (and almost the “opposite”) from the so-called propose that there are actually EPs that “play the role” neutralinos predicted by a SUSY variant known as the of standard/“actor”-EPs (composing both normal Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) matter/radiation and dark matter: the “contained” which defines neutralinos as ultra-heavy superpartners compartment of our universe) and other EPs (like Hf of the Zb and Hb with rest masses between 300GeV and Zf) that play the role of non-standard/”scenic”- and 1TeV: this is another main difference (in EPs (the “container” compartment, the “vacuum predictions) between SUSYA and SUSY/MSSM. Zf scene” of our universe). and Hf are actually the opposite of the so-called The movement of any non-Hf/Zf EP (or of any WIMPs (weakly-interacting massive particles, as composite physical body composed from such EPs) neutralinos were also defined by MSSM and were through this hypothetical superfluid Hf/Zf-based

9

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

aether/sea would be practically frictionless, thus our “hided” some change in the interference pattern (as universe may be actually a perpetuum mobile of 3rd found in all MM-like experiments), but the effect was kind (which completely eliminates friction and other too small and interpreted as falling within dissipative forces, to maintain forever due to experimental error (leading to this “null-results” its mass ). interpretation). Actually, at those historical times Because light was proved since the nineteenth (from 1887 to 1920 and even later), the inconclusive century to be an electromagnetic transverse wave results of MM/MM-like experiments weren’t actually with many other interesting wave-like properties interpreted by the old as the non-existence (refraction, etc), many old physicists of aether but were generally (and indeed correctly!) believed that, to understand light, it was necessary to interpreted as the aether, if it existed, couldn’t be a understand the special characteristics of the light perfectly stationary medium (with moving Earth “medium” (called “luminiferous aether” [LA]) possibly dragging a certain amount of co-moving without which the movement of the “light-wave” aether in its movement): some old physicists even appeared as unconceivable (and still appears as such emitted the hypothesis that maybe the act of Earth to many physicists today). Many old physicists moving through the aether affected the measuring developed complex models in order to explain this LA instruments (used in MM/MM-like experiments) -- in with special and apparently contradictory qualities the 1890s Lorentz proposed the notorious Lorentz (which models were unsuccessful however): LA had transformations, which describe the length- to be very thin and elastic (a “jelly”-like medium that contraction of a moving object when viewed by an would allow solid objects to pass through it without observer at various speeds. Even if Einstein’s special resistance) but, at the same time, it had to be very (and then general) relativity theories made it possible dense (a solid-like medium with high elasticity so that to consider the existence of a totally empty region of to allow the transmission of light as transverse wave space, the quantum field theory (QFT) requires a non- at such high speeds); actually, in the last two decades empty vacuum (at least when measured at shortest of the nineteenth century, the best minds in physics time scales in which high-energy particles interact from that time intensively brainstormed in their with the electromagnetic field): QFT actually treats attempt to accurately describe LA. vacuum as a place where a large variety of virtual The initial concept of a “luminiferous aether” (charged) particle-antiparticle pairs (VPAPs) may (LA) (as a medium conceived for the electromagnetic spontaneously and momentarily come into existence to exist at the first place at the and then disappear (as allowed by the notorious “vibrations/oscillations of something”) was initially Heisenberg’s ); furthermore, the discarded after the negative results of the notorious propagation of electromagnetic or electroweak fields Michelson–Morley (MM) experimental sessions through “empty” space is facilitated by the vacuum (performed in 1887) and of other MM-like polarization (resulting from the behavior of charged experiments that excluded aether in its initial VPAPs). definition of an “absolute reference frame” and However, Einstein’s special relativity (ESR) and sparked the advent of the special relativity theory general relativity (EGR) both had and have an (SRT): however, MM and MM-like experiments essential contribution to the evolution of modern cannot exclude a non-absolute preferred reference physics because they strongly supported the most frame (NAPRF) which can exist in fact; the probably correct hypothesis that our universe hypothetical “sea/ocean” composed of NMFs like Z- contained no fixed points and no stationary reference fermions (Zfs) and Higgs-fermions (Hfs) (moving at system (thus everything was in movement relative to the speed of light, as proposed by SUSYA) may be each other), which is also the case of an aether indeed a plausible candidate for such NAPRF, as composed from the eZEH-proposed very low- explained next. interacting Zfs and Hfs moving in a Brownian-like It is often erroneously stated that the purpose of manner at the speed of light: thus, at least in principle, the original MM experiment (OMME) was to our proposed Zf/HF-based aether doesn’t contradict determine the existence of the aether: actually, ESR nor EGR. Michelson assumed from the start that the aether Some important historical mentions of the existed, and was only attempting to measure the aether. In 1920 Einstein gave a speech entitled expected effects it would produce if it was indeed a "Aether and Relativity Theory" to an audience in static frame (however, the OMME failed to produce Germany: “We may say that according to the general the expected results from a static aether). It is also space is endowed with physical erroneously reported (in many histories of physics) qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an that the OMME and other MM-like experiments Aether. According to the general theory of relativity showed “no” changes in the speed of light in any space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space direction: this first so-called "null" result actually there not only would be no propagation of light, but

10

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

also no possibility of existence for standards of space sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But complex character. It could not serve as a universal this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the reference medium, as this would be contrary to quality characteristic of ponderable media, as relativity theory.[…] only gives consisting of parts which may be tracked through statistical information, often correct, but in my time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.” opinion incomplete.” [19] [15] In 1982, the Romanian physicist and academician also wrote in 1951: "Physical Ioan-Iovitz Popescu launched an article in which he knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by defines the hypothetical aether as "a form of existence the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation of the matter […] which differs qualitatively from the [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again common (atomic and molecular) substance or changed. If one examines the question in the light of radiation (photons), and which is “governed by the present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no principle of inertia” and which is composed of “some longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can particles of exceedingly small mass, traveling now be advanced for postulating an Aether ... We chaotically at speed of light […] called etherons.” have now the velocity at all points of space-time, [20]. playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real The potential advantages of “resurrecting” the physical thing. Thus with the new theory of famous “aether”. An aether theory (AT) may allow electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] solving some serious problems of modern physics: we are rather forced to have an Aether." [16] (1) AT presents the gravitational field as a In 1986, when interviewed by Paul Davies in condensed matter theory on a 2D Euclidean/plane "The Ghost in the Atom" John Bell suggested that an background: however, such theories have to be Aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by quantized thus impose quantum gravity, which allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster implies that aether is not truly continuous (at any than light. He also suggested that Lorentz contraction length scale) but probably quantized below a specific may be consistent with relativity (and could produce length-scale (a “granular/atomized” aether) and that is an aether theory perfectly consistent with the what SUSYA also states by defining the minimum 21− OMME). Bell also suggested that the aether was length allowed r e Gk/ c 10 l (as wrongly rejected mainly on purely philosophical min e Pl grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p. also detailed in a previous paper of the author [3]). 49]. Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and (2) Quantum theory is non-local (a consequence more elegant, but, in Bell’s opinion, that doesn't of Bell's theorem), which shows that Bell's inequality rigorously rule out the existence of the aether. [17] has to hold in any Einstein-causal realistic theory. On Gerard 't Hooft also regards quantum (field) the other hand, quantum entanglement (QE) appears theory (QFT) not as a complete field theory (but only to violate Einstein causality: however, if one gives up an emergent phenomenon arising from a deeper level Einstein causality (the base of Einsteinian “realism”), of possibly subquantum dynamics) and conjectured in one essentially has to go back to the AT proposed by 2002 that: "We should not forget that quantum Lorentz, and to find an extension of it applicable to mechanics does not really describe what kind of gravity. dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but (3) The equations of Einstein’s general relativity rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems (EGR) generate singularity-type solutions which extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the indicate an intrinsic flaw in EGR: AT has the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes potential to eliminate the main singularities that are so complicated to describe, that one should (unavoidable for the current form of EGR): the pre- expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any Big-Bang singularity and black holes. The aether is approximation theory describing the effects of all of considered complete if it is defined for all this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable coordinates. A solution of AT is considered complete first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the if it is defined for all values of the preferred Planck domain. One might speculate then that what coordinates: in contrast, a solution of EGR is we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing considered complete only if the metric is geodetically else than an ingenious technique to handle this complete. dynamics statistically." [18] (4) EGR has also a major conceptual problem In one of his latest published articles, the famous with energy and conservation: the physicist Louis de Broglie also expressed his opinion conserved stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor of on a hypothetical subquantum aether: "If a hidden EGR (which behaves as tensor only with respect to

11

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

restricted coordinate transformations) doesn’t allow a fluctuation of SV. Actually, this approach has a very physical interpretation in the standard spacetime importance nuance/duality (which also has relevance interpretation of EGR (where all physical fields in our SUSYA-proposed Zf/Hf-based SV): (1) an should to be tensor fields). In contrast with EGR, AT observer residing inside such a SV (and being capable has standard local densities of energy and momentum of creating or measuring its small fluctuations with also for the gravitational field. low momenta, below its excitation threshold) would The weak points of an aether theory (AT). The observe those small fluctuations as relativistic objects harmonic condition of an AT (which is a physical (like Zfs and Hfs are): in this case, SV behaves like an equation) is not an Euler-Lagrange equation (and not ideal fluid and therefore, the MM-type experiments derived from a Lagrange formalism): in contrast, EGR would observe no drag force from such a minimally- in its spacetime interpretation is preferable, because it excited SV (explainable by those low-interacting Zfs has a Lagrange formalism (defined by the Hilbert- and Hfs) thus would lead to “null” results (which Einstein Lagrangian). The fact that AT hasn’t got a cannot however exclude the existence of such a Lagrange formalism generates some other problems minimally-excited SV); (2) an observer residing too, especially the fact that Noether’s theorem cannot inside such a SV (and being capable of creating or be used to derive energy and momentum conservation measuring its large fluctuations with large momenta, laws: this issue is also very problematic in the EGR above its excitation threshold) would observe those spacetime interpretation where there is no local large fluctuations as non-relativistic objects. energy and momentum density for the gravitational Several SVT variants have been proposed (with field, but only a pseudotensor (which does not allow various proposed structures and properties of the for a physical interpretation in EGR). The lack of background SV): however, in absence of Lagrange formalism in AT also makes quantization observational data (which would rule out some of more difficult: quantization would have been much them), these SVT variants are being pursued simpler if there would be a local energy density to independently and SUSYA also proposes a SV define the Hamilton operator. composed from these two types of neutral (Majorana) SUSYA solves at least in part the problem of massless fermions (NMFs) (Zfs and Hfs) moving in a spacetime/gravitational quantization by introducing a Brownian-like manner (in all directions) with a minimum length allowed in our universe maximum allowed speed in our universe vmax 21− rmin  e Gke / c 10 lPl (derived from the (approximated to the speed of light in vacuum): these main equation of eZEH). SUSYA-proposed NMFs are stated to form a superfluid fermionic field (SFF) which is stated to The superfluid vacuum/aether theory (SVT). also obey Fermi–Dirac statistics (governed by Pauli’s In 1951 P.A.M. Dirac published two papers where he exclusion principle and by canonical anticommutation pointed out that quantum fluctuations in the flow of relations rather than the canonical commutation the aether should taken into account [16, 21]: more relations of bosonic fields). The FF-“prototype” is the specifically, Dirac applied the Heisenberg’s Dirac field, which describes the collective behavior of uncertainty principle (HUP) to the velocity of aether spin-1/2 fermions with non-zero/zero rest mass at any point of spacetime and demonstrated that the (electrons, protons, quarks etc.) and which can be velocity isn’t a well-defined quantity, but distributed described as either a 4-component spinor (like in the over various possible values (thus aether could be case of fermions with non-zero rest mass) or as a pair modeled by a representing the perfect of 2-component Weyl spinors (like in the case of vacuum state for which all possible aether velocities charged fermions with zero rest mass called “Weyl in each spacetime point are equally probable). fermions”). Inspired by these ideas of Dirac, Sinha, Sivaram and Because both Hf and Zf are defined by SUSYA Sudarshan published in 1975 a series of papers in to be Majorana fermions, this SUSYA-proposed SFF which they have proposed an aether modeled as can be described as a dependent 4-component superfluid composed of fermion-antifermion pairs, Majorana spinor or a single 2-component Weyl-like describable by a macroscopic wave function (/pseudo-Weyl) spinor. Being irreducible [22,23,24]. These authors have concluded that the representations of the proper Lorentz group, Weyl superfluid vacuum/aether (SV) should be modeled as fermions can actually be used as building blocks of relativistic matter (ultra-light fermions/bosons any kind of fermionic field [9]. moving at ultrarelativistic or even relativistic speeds) Furthermore, this NMFs-based SV (NMF-SV) by putting it into the stress–energy tensor of the behaves like an almost perfect (fermionic) Einstein’s field equations (EFE): however, as ultrarelativistic gas (modeled as a fermionic subsequent authors have noted, this approach didn’t condensate composed from Hfs and Zfs, possibly offer a description of relativistic gravity as a small organized in Hf-Hf / Zf-Zf / Hf-Zf pairs analogously to

12

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

Cooper pairs from the electron condensates) which actually compatible with EGR, in the sense that EGR expands progressively producing an accelerated may be a 4D geometrical variant of FGT, because this cosmic inflation: other authors have also considered NMF-SV may actually “bend”/deform (and support Big-Bounce-like fermionic cosmologies (in which a “ripples” [identified with gravitational waves global fermionic field can behave as an accelerated- quantized by the hypothetical graviton] and “bubbles” inflation field in the early universe, giving then place [identified with black holes in which many types of to a matter-dominated period characterized by cosmic EPs can remain “trapped” at least temporarily]) like decelerated inflation) [25]. any liquid/fluid (because it is actually a superfluid Not only that Hf is (stated to be) the mass- fermionic condensate) but may also contain streams conjugate of the Higgs boson (Hb) and Zf is (stated to of NMFs partially shielded by any material object be) the mass-conjugate of the Z boson (Zb) (as (thus producing the gravitational effect described by proposed by SUSYA), but SUSYA also proposes a FGT): in other words, SUSYA actually states that profound connection between this NMF-based FGT and EGR are actually two “faces” of the same superfluid vacuum/aether (NMF-SV) and both the “coin”, to different ways to describe the same NMF- Higgs field (HF) (a very weak but subtle global SV/aether. More ambitiously, SUSYA states that coupling between NMF-SV and HF) and the theory (EGT) (including Erik electroweak Z-subfield (ZF) (a very weak but subtle Verlinde’s version [26]) may be actually considered a local coupling between NMF-SV and ZF), with the third alternative variant in which the same NMF-SV possibilities that: (1) Hb may also produce one or phenomenology can be described without more undetectable Hfs in its various types of decays; fundamentally contradicting or replacing EGR and (2) Zb may also produce one or more undetectable Zfs FGT, but being merely the 3rd face of this same in its various types of decays; “coin”. Pauli’s exclusion principle (prohibiting fermions Because Hf is defined as a scalar neutral massless from occupying the same and which fermion (NMF) and the Zf is defined as a vectorial principle apply to all fermions) may be also extended NMF, this fermionic SV/condensate/aether is thus on Hfs and Zfs and, combined with the principle of defined by SUSYA as a “bilaminary” mix between the minimum distance two superposed scalar (Hf-based) and vectorial (Zf- 21− based) fermionic fields: fermionic scalar fields are not r e Gk/ c 10 l (previously min ( e Pl ) a novelty per se [27]; the scalar Hf-based fermionic proposed by eZEH as the esential condition for any subfield (of this SUSYA-proposed aether) may be a VPAP to posses a rest mass describable by a real candidate for a form of scalar dark matter (SDM) number), may both explain why and how these which is however quite distinct from the currently Hfs/Zfs massless fermions create the appearance of a hypothesized forms of SDM composed from 3D/4D empty space possessing a non-zero volume. hypothetical (still unknown) EPs with rest masses SUSYA thus predicts that the so-called “4D between a few MeV’s and a few GeV’s [28]. spacetime” used by Einstein’s General relativity This SUSYA-proposed NMF-based superfluid (EGR) is not an abstract one, but is actually a 4D vacuum (NMF-SV) may explain many apparent fermionic condensate/hyperfluid (composed from Hfs paradoxes of quantum mechanics/world (listed and Zfs) which may distort/bend/deform when excited below): by other sources of energy (like other physical fields (1) NMF-SV may explain Heisenberg’s and EPs): gravitational waves (GWs) are redefined as Uncertainty principle (HUP) and the wave-particle collective distortions of the Hfs/Zfs trajectories duality (WPD) (the “wavicle”-like character of any composing this superfluid fermionic non-NMF EP) by the fact that any EP (or any EP- vacuum/condensate. based composite physical object) produces ripples in Furthermore, this SUSYA-proposed NMF-based this NMF-SV which may be identified with the so- superfluid vacuum/aether (NMF-SV) rebrings into called “matter waves” (firstly proposed by de attention the Fatio/Le Sage theory of gravitation Broglie). (FTG) (which never gained widespread acceptance (2) because NMFs are stated by SUSYA to can until present) in which streams of NMFs impact all actually permeate any composite physical object material objects from all directions: in this old theory (CPO), NMFs may also explain the quantum of gravitation (firstly proposed in 1690 by Fatio and tunnelling effect (QTE) by a 2-steps “perforation” re-brought into attention in 1748 by Le Sage), any two mechanism in which: (i) in a 1st step, a group of material bodies partially shield each other from these NMFs may shield any tunnelling (non-NMF-)EP and impinging NMFs, resulting in a net imbalance in the facilitate its transition through any CPO (energetic pressure exerted by the impact of NMFs on the obstacle) which transition may be mediated (in a bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. second step) by (ii) another group of NMFs which Furthermore, SUSYA argues that FTG may be

13

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

may create a tunnel-like structure through that = h /2(  ) ): all these known and predicted energetic obstacle (CPO) so that to generate QTE; gr gr (3) this NMF-SV is stated by SUSYA to interact neutral EPs (Hfs, Zfs and all three known generations very weakly with all the other (non-NMF-)EPs and of neutrinos) are thus stated by SUSYA to be CPOs but it is co-stated by SUSYA to also posses a governed by this SUSYA-proposed extension of HUP self-interaction potential (as a function of the scalar (eHUP). Furthermore, this eHUP supports a realistic and pseudo-scalar invariants) which may help explain interpretation like the one recently proposed by many quantum effects like QTE (as previously Lindgren and Liukkonen [34]. detailed) and even quantum entanglement (QE) (as These Hfs and Zfs may also explain the physical explained later in the paper); time arrow (flowing from the past to the future) by the Additionally, this Hfs/Zfs-based SV/aether irreversibility of Hf/Zf movements which massless (proposed by SUSYA) may at least partially explain fermions are stated to cannot inversely describe any dark matter and dark energy (including macrocosmic initial trajectory (so that each of their trajectories of accelerated inflation of our observable universe) and movement is unique an unrepeatable in the exactly even establish a profound connection between these inverse way). two important physical concepts. This Hf/Zf-based SV (modeled as a fermionic Other authors have also considered the “revival” condensate which may allow subtle resonance-like of the aether concept to “save” EGR by solving its correlations between its distant regions) may also be a related paradoxes (and bringing EGR closer to medium that allows and thus explains quantum quantum mechanics and concomitantly explaining entanglement. dark energy and dark matter) starting from the The rest energy of Hf and ZF would be zero (as “Einstein aether theories” which are concrete they are defined by SUSYA to possess only examples of theories with broken Lorentz invariance, relativistic energy) and their relativistic energy of Hf initially popularized by Maurizio Gasperini in a series and Zf would be the minimum (min) conceivable of papers in the 1980s [29]) and further developed by: energy (Emin ) in our observable universe (ObU) (1) Jacobson, Mattingly and their “aetheory” which may be arbitrarily identified with the (launched in 2000) [30]; (2) Heinicke et al. in 2005 relativistic energy of a photon with wavelength equal [31]; (3) Złośnik et al. in 2018 [32]; (4) Battye et al. in 27 2019 [33]. to diameter of ObU (DmObU  10 ) so that: SUSYA predicts the real existence of the hypothetical graviton and defines it as a bosonic −33 EHf/ Zf= E min  hc/ D ObU  10 eV (5) excitation of this Hf/Zf fermionic superfluid “vacuum” (SV)/aether/condensate. SUSYA not only predicts the existence of the graviton (as explained This predicted/estimated relativistic energy later on in this paper), but also predicts that, in (E ) of Hf/Zf corresponds to a theoretical contrast with the photon (which is stated by SUSYA min to can only produce VPAPs composed from charged minimum rest mass (allowed in our universe) of 2− 69 EPs which couple electromagnetically/with the m= E/ c 10 kg which is electromagnetic field of the photon), only the graviton Hf// Zf Hf Zf can produce VPAPs composed from neutral EPs, almost infinitesimal and may be reasonably including pairs of neutrinos, Hfs and Zfs, depending approximated to m 0 kg (as predicted by on the energy of the graviton (gr), which may depend Hf/ Zf on its wavelength ( ) if modeled similarly to the the conjugated solutions of the main equation proposed by eZEH). photon so that its energy would be Egr= h gr c /  , If the total mass of the ordinary matter (om) (including ration/bosonic matter and estimated at with hhgr ( ) being a Planck-like gravitonic 53 Mom 10 kg ) represents only about 5% constant measuring the quantum of the angular momentum of any graviton. (=1/20) of the total mass of the observable universe Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle (HUP) can be (ObU) (with total mass estimated as also extended on (and on all light neutral 54 M20  M  2  10 kg ) and the dark EPs that may be generated by the hypothetical ObU om graviton, in pairs/VPAPs) so that energy (de) plus dark matter(dm) both represent 95% of ObU (thus having a mass of x p gr / 2( / 2) (with a reduced 54 ) then: gravitonic Planck-like constant defined as Mde& dm0.95  M ObU  1.9  10 kg

14

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

finite and non-infinitesimal minimum rest mass if Mde& dm is attributed to this predicted Hf/Zf-based aether only, the minimum number of Hfs/Zfs per unit mmin  0 kg allowed in our universe) can actually of volume in ObU (with total volume be assigned a finite maximum allowed speed vmax 80 3 VmObU 3.6 10 ) would be (for any EP to travel in our universe): the photon is redefined by SUSYA as an quantized oscillation of Mm/ 42 3 de& dm NMF 2 10NMFs / m (with this Zf/Hf-based fermionic SV (composed from Zfs VObU and Hfs moving at maximum speed ), thus the “NMFs” being the abbreviation for “neutral massless photon can only travel in this fermionic SV at speeds fermions” like Hfs and Zfs are and cv max (so that the speed of a photon in vacuum is −69 inversely redefined as ). Because the mNMF = mHf/ Zf 10 kg ): this minimum cv max 13 usually photon reaches speeds in the density is equivalent to about 10 NMFs per each volume of a hydrogen atom (H) (with volume “perfect SV the vacuum, this “sea” of Zfs and Hfs −30 3 firmly opposes to any further acceleration of the VmH 10 ) which is a relatively huge number photon, suddenly behaving like a very rigid/stiff solid- of NMFs (defining a kind of spatial/aetherial like elastic medium with a specific non-zero degree of “volumic resolution” of a hydrogen atom). elasticity (with huge energetic volumic density However, if the Planck-like gravitonic constant possibly approaching Planck density and a very large 3 35 hhgr ( ) (attributed to the hypothetical graviton) characteristic impedance of cG/ 4 10kg / s ) in which the photon propagates as a transverse wave −43 is estimated as hgr = h (G /0 )  10 h (like also the gravitational [transverse] waves and analogously to a sonic “boom”): that is how SUSYA −1 (with  137 being the value at rest of the explains why light behaves like a transverse wave electromagnetic coupling constant and (which commonly occur in elastic solids) in many −45 types of specific experiments (like the Thomas being the value at rest of the G 1.75 10 Young's double-slit experiment showing the electromagnetic coupling constant) then we may diffraction of light); however, when any physical hypothesize an alternative gravitonic minimum object (PO) travels in this Zf/Hf-based SV at low energy-quantum of our ObU as speeds vv( max ) , SV opposes just a minimum −76 Emin(gr)  hgr c/ DObU 10 eV (practically zero!) resistance to that movement, because Zfs and Hfs are very weakly interacting with (corresponding to a theoretical relativistic mass of the any form of matter composing a PO. Furthermore, the hypothetical graviton of solid-like resistance generated by the Zf/Hf-based SV 2− 112 at large/ultrarelativistic speeds v (a resistance highly mgr = E/ c 10 kg : based on these min(gr ) opposing to the ultrarelativistic movement of any attributes of the hypothetical graviton and redefining physical object [PO] with non-zero rest mass) may −111 also explain the Lorentz length compression factor mNMF (= mHf/ Zf )  mgr 10 kg(  0 kg) , 2  =−1/ 1(vc / ) (applied as ll'/=  when we have the length of that PO is parallel to its direction of Mm/ 84 3 movement) and the phenomenon of relativistic mass de& dm NMF 9 10NMFs / m which dilation mm' = (explained by a progressively VObU larger number of Zfs and Hfs that may “precipitate” 55 is equivalent to about 10 NMFs per each volume on and thus progressively increase the mass of any PO of a hydrogen atom (H) which is a really large moving at ultrarelativistic speeds v ). In other words, number of NMFs (defining a huge spatial/aetherial SUSYA states that no other EP can surpass the speed “volumic resolution” of a hydrogen atom). of Hfs and Zfs vc simply because there is ( max ) A redefinition of the speed of light in vacuum no EP lighter than Hfs and Zfs (composing SV): (as based on Zf and Hf) and an explanation on the vcmax ( ) is explained to be the same in all apparently paradoxal behavior of the superfluid possible inertial reference-frames simply because SV vacuum/aether. Zfs and Hf (with zero rest mass or a is actually composed from these neutral massless

15

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

fermions (Hfs and Zfs) which all travel at 1.3.5. The proposed mass-conjugation between the approximately the same speed vc( ) in a three known types of neutrinos and the photon, max gluon and the hypothetical graviton Brownian manner, in all possible conceivable directions of space, in all possible conceivable Focusing on all three types of neutrinos, reference-frames. photon, gluon and hypothetical graviton. In a The eZEH-predicted Zfs and Hfs have also some second step, eZEH estimates the lower bounds of  similarities to the so-called “etheron” proposed in an g article from 1982 by the Romanian physicist Ioan- for all known three neutrinos, as deducted from the Iovitz Popescu which defined it as an elementary currently estimated upper bounds of the non-zero rest particle with “exceedingly small [rest] mass, traveling energies of all three known types of neutrino: the chaotically at speed of light” and estimated its rest electron neutrino (en) with Een 1 eV [36], the 3 2− 69 mass as m=2 H/ c 10 kg (with 00 muon neutrino (mn) with Emn  0.17 MeV [37] H 70 km / s / Mpc being the Hubble 0 ( ) and the tau neutrino (tn) with Etn 18.2 MeV [38, constant) and rest energy 53 47 39]:   10 u ,  6 10 u and −33 g() en  g() mn  E=3 H10 eV [20]: note that E is 002 ( ) 0 45  6 10 u , with  being assigned a very close to the previous estimation of the Hf/Zf g() tn  g() en −33 very large Gvar upper bound relativistic energy EHf/ Zf = E min ( 10 eV ) , 28 G= r 2  10 G , so that −26 en ( g(en) min ) because c/ H0 ( 10 m) has a magnitude close GGGvar , en  and thus strengthening the to Dm1027 , so that ObU previously introduced (sub-)hypothesis 3  22 3 2 c hc mq at scales close to Planck scale. EHE=2 =  = ge 00c/ Hmin  D 0 ObU Remark. It is easy to observe that eZEH generally −33  10 eV . predicts progressively larger “real” big G values for The eZEH-predicted Zfs and Hfs have also some progressively smaller m : an additional explanation similarities to the so-called “microleptons” (MLs) for this correlation shall be offered later in this paper. proposed by the Russian physicist Anatolij We must also remind that a specific virtual EP (VEP) Fedorovich Ohatrin which defined them as superlight may have a variable mass lower or equal to the mass fermions with rest masses estimated to be in the m of the real “version” of the same EP −−44 39 (mm ) and that is why the “virtual” big G interval 10 ,10 kg (and stated to surround VEP values assigned to the gravitational field acting and fill/permeate “all the composite physical objects between a virtual particle and its antiparticle (part of [CPOs] of the material world”, with “no physical the same VPAP) may be even larger than the barriers”). These MLs are also stated to posses previously calculated ones. inherent torsion, axial and spin fields and to globally form a very weak fermionic field called eZEH cannot directly estimate the values of g() NEP “microleptonic gas” (MLG) which has a specific contribution to the inertial/rest mass of any CPO (a for the massless photon (ph) g() ph and the gluon contribution also depending on the density and (gl)  due to the division-by-zero error/paradox. temperature of this MLG). [35] g() gl Important prediction. SUSYA also predicts that However, eZEH additionally states that  and it is very possible for all the stars to produce (by g() ph hydrogen fusion to helium) large quantities of such g() gl may have very large values coinciding with neutral massless Majorana Higgs-fermions (Hfs) and Z-fermions (Zfs) which may progressively add g() en , g() mn and g() tn . More specifically, volume to the current aether (identified with our apparently 3D empty space) and thus to produce an eZEH speculates that g()() ph g gl and that there accelerated global expansion of our universe. also exists a massless graviton (gr) defined by

g()()() gr  g ph(  g gl ) so that:

16

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

= , = and types of hypothetical SMECs (index as type 1, 2 etc), g()() gr g en g()() ph g mn each proposed as a possible extension of the Standard Model (SM). Type-1 SMEC (SMEC-1) is the . In other words, SUSYA actually g()() gl= g tn simplest variant of SMEC and assumes two or more predicts these three pairs of mass-conjugates (MCs): additional right-handed neutrino fields inert under the (gr, en), (ph, mn) and (gl-tn). Furthermore and (the so-called “sterile accordingly to eZEH, because the hypothetical gr neutrinos”), and the existence of a very large mass (hgr), ph and gl are their own antiparticles (as scale identifiable with the postulated scale of grand generally considered in the Standard Model), this unification (GU). More specifically, SMEC-1 eZEH-based SUSYA predicts that en, mn and tn produces both a light neutrino and a very heavy one (defined as the MCs of hgr, ph and gl respectively) (yet to be observed) for each of the three known are also their own antiparticles, thus they are neutrino flavors. SMEC-1 is actually based on a predicted to be actually elementary Majorana simple mathematical principle following property of fermions (EMFs) (aka Majorana neutrinos, because the symmetric 2×2 mass matrix for the neutrinos of Majorana fermions are electromagnetically neutral by 0 M the form A =  (with B being the definition, otherwise they couldn’t be their own MB antiparticles). More ambitiously (and also based on  the same eZEH), SUSYA also predicts that, because Majorana mass component of the neutrinos and M hgr is the MC of the en, a sufficiently high-energy hgr being the Dirac mass component of the neutrinos) may produce (or “decay to”) an en-pair: the same for with a characteristic polynomial (CP) A' (a ph (which may produce a mn-pair) and for gl (which polynomial which is invariant under matrix similarity may produce a tn-pair). SUSYA also predicts the multiple possibility that: (1) en to decay to a (hgr, and has the eigenvalues of A as roots), with Hf/Zf) pair, (2) mn to decay to a (ph, Hf/Zf) pair, (3) eigenvector matrix tn to decay to a (gl, Hf/Zf) pair. 1 0   0 M   x− M  Like all EMFs (including the hypothetical Hf and A' = x  I − A = x   −   =   2 01 M B−− M x B Zf) en, mn and tn are also stated by SUSYA to not       possess intrinsic electric or magnetic moments, but 10 only toroidal moments (produced by their helicity) (with I2 =  being the 2x2 identity matrix which allows only minimal interactions with 01 electromagnetic fields (thus making them plausible with 1-values on the main diagonal and 0-values on candidates for cold dark matter). Also, like all EMFs, the secondary diagonal): the determinant A' en, mn and tn are also stated by SUSYA to violate the conservation of lepton number and even to violate the (defining the CP) can be easily estimated as difference between the baryon number (B) and the xM− 2 A' = = x( x − B) −( − M ) and the lepton number (L) (the so-called “B - L”/ "bee minus −−M x B ell"): thus, SUSYA predicts that, even if it hasn’t been observed yet in nature (nor in various experiments), characteristic/determinantal (quadratic) equation (CE) neutrinoless double beta decay (NDBD) is possible, 22 A'0=x− xB − M = 0 . Noting the because NDBD can be viewed as two ordinary beta decays whose resultant antineutrinos immediately coefficient of this CE with a =1, bB=− and annihilate with each other (an annihilation that is only 2 cM=− , the x solutions of CE are actually the possible if neutrinos are their own antiparticles).  In this new light of SUSYA, the hypothetical eigenvalues of matrix and can be easily aether components Hf and Zf may be actually −b  b2 − 4 ac considered a “0th” (4th) (still undetected) generation determined as x = , which is of (Majorana) neutrinos.  2a In a checkpoint conclusion, by predicting en, 22 mn and tn to be all EMFs (additionally to the BBM+4 equivalent to x = , with SUSYA-predicted hypothetical aether components Hf  2 and Zf which are also defined as EMFs), SUSYA is in 2 agreement with the currently most-favored product x x = − M : as one may easily note explanation of the smallness of neutrino mass, the +− seesaw mechanism (SMEC) (in which the neutrino is from these x solutions, if one of the eigenvalues “naturally” a Majorana fermion). SMEC may naturally explain why the observed ( x+ ) goes up, the other ( x− ) goes down (and vice neutrino rest-masses are so small. There are several versa) and that is why SMEC was coined as "seesaw"

17

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

mechanism. In applying SMEC-1 to neutrinos, the −2qk2 qq − 2 − 2 Majorana mass component B (which is defined as e== e e corresponds comparable to the GU energy-scale and violating 4gg 2 2 G lepton number) is taken to be much larger (>>) than  Dirac mass component M of the neutrinos (which is to M ). The 2x2 symmetrical matrix with comparable to the much smaller electroweak energy- solutions as eigenvalues would be: scale), which implies that BMB2+4 2 2 (because 4MB22 ): that is why q −2k 0 e 2  BB+ 2 G xB and the smaller eigenvalue Z = (6) + 2 q−2k 2 rc2  e 2 GG ( x ) is approximated from the previously mentioned  − The equation (2) of eZEH may be thus redefined 2 as the characteristic equation (derived from the equality x+− x = − M to ( ) characteristic polynomial by equaling it to zero) of −−MM22 this Z matrix. x    0 [7] [40, 41, 42]. 2 − The a element 2/rc G (of the previous xB+ 2,2 That is how SMEC-1 explains why the neutrino matrix Z ) is actually a Majorana mass component B masses (corresponding to the x− solution) are so and may be written as a variable (var) real mass small (~1eV), which is in relative agreement with the 2 component mvar ( r) = 2/ rc G (which takes most recent experiments that estimate the rest energy- masses of the three known generations of neutrinos: only real-number values for rr min ) : mrvar ( ) is this (relative) agreement is sometimes regarded as supportive evidence for the framework of GU a simple linear function of rr( min ) , which takes theories. the value of 2m for distance rl= (with The conjugated solutions Pl Pl 22 −8 BBM+4 mPl = c/ G 2.18 10 kg being the Planck x = (proposed by SMEC-1)  2 3 −35  mass and lGPl = /c 1.62 10 m being have striking similarity with the solutions (3) of the the Planck length) and progressively larger values (in main equation (2) of eZEH a linear manner) for larger r values. However, G is c2− c 4 q 2 also stated by SUSYA to vary with the length (thus ge energy) scale r (as previously calculated from the m = (presented in the first g various values of g for various pairs of mass- sections of this paper); to exactly resemble x  conjugates and rmin , as Grmin(x)= g (x) min ) and solutions, the m solutions (proposed by eZEH) can that is why mr can be generalized as be rewritten as: var ( ) 2 mvar ( r) = 2/ rc G( r) : exponentially larger 24cc242 q2 −e Gr( ) values with decreasing length scale (as  2 ggg predicted by SUSYA) would allow elementary rest m = (5) 2 masses much lower than mPl for -scales −1 According to this similarity (invoked by comparable to rlmin (10 Pl ) as all known EPs 22 actually have. SUSYA), (2c /g )(= 2 rc / G) corresponds to 2 2 The aa1,2(= 2,1) double element B , −(2/egq ) corresponds to 4M , thus (q/ 2) − 2( ke / G) (of the same previous matrix

18

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

Z ) is actually a Dirac mass component M and may : hypothetical EPs with negative rest mass- be written as a variable (var) imaginary mass energy are not a novelty per se in physics, as they were also considered much earlier by other physicists: component m( q) =−( q/ 2) 2( ke / G) var(i ) in 1928, Paul Dirac's theory of EPs (part of the current Standard Model [SM]) firstly included negative (which takes only imaginary values if both ke and solutions [43]; quantum electrodynamics (QED) (the G remain positive reals at any length/energy scale “core” of SM) also works with the concept of rr min ): for example, negative mass-energy. −9 The previously introduced Z matrix may be now mvar(i ) ( e) 1.3 i 10 kg (an imaginary redefined as: undetectable mass which may be approximated with 0kg ); thus SUSYA extends this simple 2x2 B-M 0,mvar(i ) ( q r) symmetrical matrix A (applied by SMEC-1 to Z( q, r) =  (6’) m q, r m r neutrinos only) to all known/unknown EPs (including var(i ) ( ) var ( ) neutrinos) as a more general matrix Z , so that the Majorana mass component B of any EP is predicted The equation (2) of eZEH may be thus re- (by SUSYA) to be generally much larger than the redefined as the characteristic equation (derived from Dirac mass component M of that same EP. the characteristic polynomial) of this Z matrix. However, because (which is directly- SUSYA additionally predicts that the length proportional to the electromagnetic coupling constant domain may be “populated” by “exotic”  (R) increasing with decreasing r -scale) and EPs with negative and/or imaginary rest mass- are both stated by SUSYA to vary with the length - energies (which may be regarded as the “shadows” of the known positive-mass EPs) which are coined as scale (as kR and GR), mq can be e ( ) ( ) var(i ) ( ) “shadow”-EPs (shEPs) in this paper: furthermore, generalized as SUSYA also predicts that the core of any black hole (BH) may also be populated by such shEPs which mvar(i ) ( q, r) =−( q / 2) 2 ke ( r) / G( r) . This may conserve all the physical information (stored on all “normal”/”standard” EPs) absorbed by any BH generalized mass-function has imaginary-number (thus solving the BH information paradox) and may values, but may have real-number values only if the be regarded as an “empty”/”shadowy” BH-core. variable gravitational constant scalar Gr( ) would In a checkpoint conclusion, both concepts of invert its sign and become negative (so that the imaginary mass-energy and negative mass-energy are very important in this eZEH-based SUSYA which −2/k( r) G( r) ratio would become positive): in e proposes Z( q, r) -based SMEC (Z-SMEC) as a this case, the gravitational field (GF) may become very strongly repulsive for infinitesimal length scales universal seesaw mechanism (organizing all EPs in specific pairs of mass-conjugates, and that may explain why our universe rr min analogously/similarly to the neutrinos as standardly doesn’t allow r scales smaller than r (because a modeled by SMEC-1) applicable not only to min neutrinos, but to all the EPs of the Standard Model very strongly repulsive GF under would simply (SM) of and far beyond SM. prevent any collapse to scales smaller than ). 1.3.6. The proposed mass-conjugation between the Based on this predicted repulsive GF (for scales electron and the W boson; two proposed bosonic ), SUSYA thus predicts that our universe mass-conjugates for the muon and the tauon doesn’t actually allow true gravitational singularities, Focusing on the electron-W boson conjugated but only gravitational quasi-singularities: that is how pair, but also on the muon and tauon which are SUSYA tries to solve the singularity paradox of predicted to have ultra-heavy charged bosonic Einstein’s General Relativity (EGR). mass-conjugates. In a third step, eZEH additionally A negative-valued (for ) would states that the W boson and the electron may also also imply a negative (real-numbered) Majorana mass form a conjugate boson-fermion pair with rest masses 2 2 4 2 component m( r) = 2/ rc G( r) for mee= c − c −g(/)(/) W e  e W e q /  g (W/e) var ( )

19

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

and Majorana neutrinos Hf and Zf predicted to compose a 2 4 2 so-called superfluid aether) are thus redefined by m= c + c −  q /  . st W ( g(/)(/) W e e W ee ) g (W/e) SUSYA to be actually just the final products of this 1 step of SB. 42 The common term cq−g()() W−− e e W e e of 1.3.7. The proposed mass-conjugation between the both rest masses ( me and mW ) disappears when three known generations of quarks and three 2 predicted generations of fractional-charge bosons summing me += mW 2/ c g(W/e) , from which (known as “leptoquarks”) their common/shared  ratio can be reversely g(W/e) Focusing on a proposed mass conjugation estimated as between the three known generations of quarks 2 42 and three predicted generations of fractional- g(W/e) =2c /( me + mW )  1.25  10 u , charge bosons (leptoquarks). eZEH also predicts that the six known quarks may have as mass-conjugates a 42 which is relatively close to g() Zb (10 u) and set of six fractional-(electromagnetic)charge bosons known as leptoquarks (LQs) (hypothetical EPs that 41 would carry information between each generation of gb(H ) (8 10 u) , thus we have an estimated quarks and a correspondent generation of leptons, thus G= r  G  G 2  1016 G . The allowing quarks and leptons to interact). LQs were W/ e( g (W/e) min ) Zb Hb first predicted by various extensions of the Standard other  ratio can be also reversely estimated Model, such as theories and Grand e(W/e) unified theories (GUTs) based on Pati–Salam model, SU(5) or E6, etc from both mW (or me ) and g(W/e) as LQs were predicted to be considerably unstable 24− 1  6.4 10 F . and heavy EPs (nearly as heavy as an atom of lead) e(W/e) that may only be produced in LHC at very high energies of collisions: the quantum numbers (like In the case of the muon (m) and tauon (t) (which spin, fractional electromagnetic charge [EMC] and are currently considered two distinct excited states of ) vary among theories. However, eZEH the electron) eZEH predicts that they may be specifically predicts that LQs (the mass-conjugates of conjugated with two predicted hypothetical bosons quarks) also organize in three generations AND can (which are analogously considered two distinct only have the same fractional EMC as quarks (an excited (ultra-heavy) states of the W boson) called essential eZEH-imposed condition for being “mass- here the “W-muonic boson” (Wmb) and the “W- conjugates” of those known quarks), so that and given tauonic boson” (Wtb) respectively, which Wmb and 2 Wtb are probably much heavier than the W boson and g(Hb) (= 2/cm Hb ) : the Higgs boson: Wmb and Wtb can be also regarded (1a) A so-called 1st generation LQ named “up- as ultra-heavy charged Higgs bosons with their rest energies defining the energy scale at which the leptoquark” (uLQ) with rest mass mmuLQ ( Hb ) , electroweak field (EWF) may be unified with the 2 Higgs field. 2c g(uLQ) = ( g(Hb) ) and fractional Furthermore, Wtb is predicted by SUSYA to be mmuq + uLQ the heaviest possible EP (allowed in our universe) that +2 may decay to many other lighter EPs (including EMC 3 e (the mass-conjugate of the up quark +2 decaying into leptoquarks, as explained later): also, sharing the same EMC 3 e ) may decay (by the muon and the tauon may be produced not only by conserving its EMC, however) into an up quark (with the decay of their heavier mass-conjugates (MCs) the same EMC +2 ) and an electron Wmb and Wtb, but also by the decay of leptoquarks 3 e (as also explained later in this paper). In a checkpoint neutrino/antineutrino OR may decay into a down −1 conclusion, the Wtb-tauon pair of MCs is retrodicted quark (with emc 3 e ) and a positron (with EMC by SUSYA to be actually the 1st step (/level/type) of +e ); symmetry breaking (SB) in our universe, which may (1b) A so-called 1st generation LQ named “down- have had occurred immediately after Big Bang (BB) leptoquark” (dLQ) with rest mass or even right in the BB moment: all the other lighter EPs (from the leptoquarks domain down to the lowest-energy domain dominated by the massless

20

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

rd 2c2 (3b) A so-called 3 generation LQ named , “bottom-leptoquark” (bLQ) with rest mass mdLQ( muLQ m Hb ) g(dLQ) = mm+ 2 dq dLQ 2c mmbLQ( Hb ) , g(bLQ) = −1 mm+ ( g(Hb) ) and fractional EMC 3 e (the mass- bq bLQ conjugate of the down quark sharing the same EMC and fractional EMC (the mass- −1 3 e ) may decay into a down quark (with the same conjugate of the bottom quark sharing the same EMC EMC −1 e ) and an electron neutrino(/antineutrino) 3 ) may decay into a bottom quark (with the same OR may decay into an up quark (with EMC +2 e ) 3 EMC ) and a tauon neutrino(/antineutrino) OR and an electron (with EMC −e ); (2a) A so-called 2nd generation LQ named may decay into a top quark (with EMC ) and a “charm-leptoquark” (cLQ) with rest mass tauon (with EMC ); 2c2 The three generations of LQs could actually explain the reason for the three generations of matter mmcLQ ( Hb ) , g(cLQ) = mmcq + cLQ (three generations of quarks plus three generations of leptons), why the same number of quarks and leptons +2 exist and many other similarities between the quark ( g(Hb) ) and fractional EMC 3 e (the mass- and the lepton sectors. At high energies, at which conjugate of the charm quark sharing the same EMC leptons (which are not affected by the strong nuclear +2 3 e ) may decay (by conserving its EMC, however) field [SNF]) and quarks (that cannot be separately +2 observed because of SNF) become one: this could into a charm quark (with the same EMC 3 e ) and a form a more fundamental particle and describe a muon neutrino(/antineutrino) OR may decay into a higher symmetry (so that there would be three kinds −1 strange quark (with emc 3 e ) and an antimuon (with of LQs, each decaying into the leptons and quarks of emc +e ); each generation in part). LQs may be demonstrated in (2b) A so-called 2nd generation LQ named the medium future by the so-called LHeC project, “strange-leptoquark” (sLQ) with rest mass which will be built in the future by adding an electron 2c2 ring to collide bunches with the existing LHC proton ring. mmsLQ ( Hb ) , g(sLQ) = mmsq + sLQ As anticipated, it is clear that eZEH doesn’t allow to directly estimate the g and e ratios for each ( g(Hb) ) and fractional EMC (the mass- LQ-quark pair but estimates that  conjugate of the strange quark sharing the same EMC gg(LQs) (Hb) ) may decay into a strange quark (with the same and e(LQs) e ( W / e ) : the possible existence of EMC ) and a muon neutrino(/antineutrino) OR LQs obviously implies the possible existence of may decay into a charm quark (with EMC ) and additional “exotic” fundamental physical forces/fields quantized by LQs (still unknown in the present) a muon (with EMC ); rd indicating the approximate energy scale at which SNF (3a) A so-called 3 generation LQ named “top- and electroweak field (EWF) can be unified (by the leptoquark” (tLQ) with rest mass mmtLQ ( Hb ) , so-called Grand unified theories [GUTs]).

2 2c g(tLQ) = and fractional 2. A synthesis of SUSYA [3] mmtq + tLQ All the proposed pairs of EP-conjugates (as stated EMC (the mass-conjugate of the top quark by the eZEH-based SUSYA) are also illustrated in the sharing the same EMC ) may decay (by next tables: as it can be seen from these tables, eZEH conserving its EMC, however) into a top quark (with transforms the already “classical” 2D table of EPs the same EMC ) and a tauon (from the Standard model of particle physics) in a 3D structure/table in which EPs are grouped not only in neutrino(/antineutrino) OR may decay into a bottom boson and fermion families/subfamilies, BUT they are quark (with emc ) and an antitauon (with EMC also grouped and inter-related by an “underneath” ); relation of boson-fermion mass-conjugation, all based on the same simple semi-empirical quadratic equation

21

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

proposed by eZEH as derivable from this proposed matrix and applicable to all known and unknown EPs. universal seesaw mechanism based on the Z( q, r)

Table 1. The pairs of conjugated EPs (predicted by the eZEH-based SUSYA)

Boson Fermion   Common/ shared g ratio of a Common/ shared e (/correspondent (/correspondent conjugated boson-fermion pair ratio of a conjugated conjugate boson of a conjugate fermion and the predicted big G values boson-fermion pair and known fermion) of a known boson) (assigned to each type of EP) the predicted Coulomb’s constant values Grpr = g( pr ) min kre( pr )=  e ( pr ) min Non-quark EPs as treated by the eZEH-based SUSYA

g()() gr= g en hypothetical electron neutrino  =? graviton (gr) (en) (1.1 1053u) e(gr) (spin-2 neutral (Majorana neutrino) 27 ker(g ) =? boson) GGgr/ en 2.1 10

g()() ph= g mn photon (ph) muon neutrino (mn)  =? (spin-1 neutral (Majorana neutrino) (6 1047 u) e(ph) boson) 22 ke(ph) =? GGph/ mn 1.2 10 (the same for all photons, no matter their frequency)

g()() gl= g tn gluon (gl) tauon neutrino (tn) e(gl) =? (spin-1 neutral (Majorana neutrino) (5.6 1045u) boson, with color k =? 20 e(gl) charge only) GGgl/ tn 1.2 10 “Z-fermion” (Zf) (predicted neutral 42  =? Z boson (Zb) massless ½-spin g()() Zb(= g Zf ) 10 u e(Zb) (spin-1 neutral Majorana ke(Zb) =? boson) fermion/neutrino) 16 (proposed as vector GGZb/ Zf 2.1 10 constituent of a fermionic superfluid aether (FSA) “Higgs-fermion” Higgs boson (Hb) (Hf) 41  =? (spin-0/scalar (predicted neutral g()() Hb(= g Hf ) 8  10 u e(Hb) neutral boson) massless ½-spin k =? 16 e(Hb) Majorana GGHb/ Hf 1.7 10 fermion/neutrino) (proposed as scalar constituent of a FSA)  1.25 1042u  6.4 1024F − 1 W boson (Wb) electron (e) g(W/e) e(W/e) (spin-1 charged 16 −21 GGW/e 2.6 10 kke(W/e)  10 e boson)

22

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

“W-muonic” boson =? =? (Wmb) muon (m) g(Wmb)( g ( Hb ) ) e(Wmb)( e(W/e) ) (very heavy spin-1 GG=? kk=? charged boson) Wmb ( Hb ) e(Wmb)( e ( Hb ) ) “W-tauonic” boson =? =? (Wtb) tauon (t) g(Wtb)( g ( Hb ) ) e(Wtb)( e(W/e) ) (ultra-heavy spin-1 GG=? kk=? charged boson) Wtb ( Hb ) e(Wtb)( e ( Hb ) ) Quark-leptoquark (LQ) pairs of mass-conjugates as treated and predicted by the eZEH-based SUSYA up quark (uq) up-LQ (uLQ) g(uLQ)=?( g ( Hb ) ) e(uLQ)=?( e ( W / e ) ) GG=? uLQ ( Hb ) kke(uLQ)=?( e ( Hb ) ) down quark (dq) down-LQ (dLQ) g( d LQ)=?( g ( Hb ) ) e(dLQ)=?( e ( W / e ) )

GG=? dLQ ( Hb ) kke(dLQ)=?( e ( Hb ) ) charm quark (cq) charm-LQ (cLQ) g( c LQ)=?( g ( Hb ) ) e(cLQ)=?( e ( W / e ) ) GG=? cLQ ( Hb ) kke(cLQ)=?( e ( Hb ) ) strange quark (sq) strange-LQ (sLQ) g(sLQ)=?( g ( Hb ) ) e(s LQ)=?( e ( W / e ) )

GG=? sLQ ( Hb ) kke(s LQ)=?( e ( Hb ) ) top quark (tq) top-LQ (tLQ) g(tLQ)=?( g ( Hb ) ) e(t LQ)=?( e ( W / e ) ) GG=? tLQ ( Hb ) kke(tLQ)=?( e ( Hb ) ) bottom quark (bq) bottom-LQ (bLQ) g(bLQ)=?( g ( Hb ) ) e(bLQ)=?( e ( W / e ) )

GG=? bLQ ( Hb ) kke(bLQ)=?( e ( Hb ) )

23

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

Table 2. The pairing of conjugated EPs predicted by the eZEH-based SUSYA and marked by interconnecting arrows. Source of image extracts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg (marks each pair of conjugates stated by eZEH) Additional abbreviation: Maj. (Majorana neutrino)

up-LQ charm-LQ (cLQ) top-LQ (uLQ) (tLQ) +2 ( 3 e) down-LQ (dLQ) strange-LQ bottom-LQ hypothetical −1 (sLQ) (bLQ) graviton (gr) ( 3 e) (spin-2 neutral boson)

Maj. Maj. Maj. “W-muonic “Higgs-fermion” boson” (Wmb) (Hf) (spin-1 charged (predicted neutral ultra-heavy massless ½-spin boson) Maj. fermion) (FSA constituent)

“W-tauonic “Z-fermion” (Zf) boson” (Wtb) (predicted neutral (spin-1 charged massless ½-spin ultra-heavy Maj. fermion) boson) (FSA constituent)

In a checkpoint conclusion, SUSYA essentially types of EPs (the double of the 17 known types of proposes a universal seesaw mechanism (abbreviated EPs); SUSYA explains the non-zero rest as Z-SMEC and previously expressed by the masses of 28 known and hypothetical Z( q, r) matrix) applicable to all known/unknown EPs (14 pairs of eZEH-predicted mass-conjugates, not counting their antiparticles which almost doubles EPs. Z-SMEC actually replaces the “superpartner” this number: (1)Zb & Zf, (2)Hb & Zf, (3)gr & en, notion (of SUSY) with the concept of (charge-based) (4)ph & mn, (5)gl & tn, (6)Wb & electron, (7)Wmb & “mass-conjugate” or simply “conjugate” of a known muon, (8)Wtb & tauon, (9)uq & uLQ, (10)dq & dLQ, EP, which conjugate may be actually an already (11)cq & cLQ, (12)sq & sLQ, (13)tq & tLQ and known EP: in this way SUSYA more-“economically” (14)bq & bLQ) by only 14 discrete  ratios predicts only 28 known plus hypothetical EPs in g contrast with SUSY which predicts at least 34 distinct (associated with their bijectively-correspondent e

24

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

EPs) called “Z-SMEC” which is a quite powerful ratios): (1)g()() Zb(= g Zf ), concept, predicting 4 generations of Majorana neutrinos (MNs), from which the massless MNs Hf th (2)g()() Hb(= g Hf ) , (3)g()() gr(= g en ) , and Zf (composing the so-called “0 ” generation) are hypothesized to actually compose a superfluid aether). SUSYA predicts the existence of the graviton (4)g()() ph(= g mn ) , (5)g()() gl(= g tn ) , (as a spin-2 boson and mass-conjugate of the electron (6)==   , (7)= , neutrino), the leptoquarks, the primordial “W- g( W )( g ( e ) g (W/e) ) g()() Wmb( g m ) tauonic” boson and also predicts a length-scale- dependent variable GG( ) bringing General (8)g( Wtb )(= g (t) ) , (9)gg(uq)(= (uLQ) ) , var relativity and quantum field theory closer to one another by offering a natural elegant solution to the (10)gg(dq)= (dLQ) , (11)gg(cq)= (cLQ) , ( ) ( ) hierarchy problem in physics. (12)= , (13)= and eZEH also offers a new interpretation of Planck gg(sq)( (sLQ) ) g( t q)( g (tLQ) ) length as the approximate length threshold above which the rest masses of all known EPs have real (14) . number values (with mass units) instead of The heavier conjugate of any pair can decay to its complex/imaginary number values (as predicted by lighter conjugate (or a sufficiently energetic bosonic the unique quadratic equation proposed by eZEH): the conjugate may produce particle-antiparticle pairs of existence of this minimum distance its lighter conjugate) also obeying both energy and 21− rmin = q Gke / c( 10 lPl ) (allowed between charge conservation principles: Wtb decays to a tauon (plus other possible EPs), Wmb decays to a any two virtual EPs of the same VPAP popping out muon (plus other possible EPs), LQs decay to quarks, from the vacuum) strongly indicates that spacetime the hypothetical graviton (with sufficient energy) may may have a granular/quantum structure near the generate a pair of electron neutrinos, the photon (with Planck scale (as also predicted by Loop quantum sufficient energy) may generate a pair of muon gravity theory) possibly composed from neutrinos, the gluon (with sufficient energy) may “uncompressible” 3D/4D spatial/spacetime voxels generate a pair of tauon neutrinos (plus other EPs with which don’t allow true gravitational singularities, but ), the W(+/-) boson is already known to can only quasi-singularities with large but finite density decay to a positron/electron plus an electron neutrino (including the possibility of a pre-Big Bang quasi- (the beta decay), the Higgs boson may decay in one singularity [pBBQS] with large but finite density). ore more “Higgs-fermions” (Hfs) (defined as massless eZEH also helps predicting the behaviour of the Majorana neutrinos) plus other EPs, the Z-boson may electromagnetic field and gravitational field at Planck decay in one ore more “Z-fermions” (Zfs) (also length/energy scales which may reach a balance at defined as massless Majorana neutrinos) plus other that length-scale so that 22 EPs. E E  m  q and a very large- Furthermore, SUSYA offers many additional g q g e eZEH-based interesting predictions and explanations, valued universal gravitational constant around including the prediction that all three known 27 generations of neutrinos are actually Majorana Planck length scale GGGPl gr ( 2.1  10 ) neutrinos and that there is a “0th”/4th generation of (with being the big G assigned to the neutrinos called “Higgs (scalar) fermion” (Hf) and Ggr “Z (vector) fermion” (Zf) proposed as the main hypothetical graviton as shown in the 1st row of constituents of a superfluid Hf/Zf-based aether. Some Table 1). other important implications and predictions of Because both G and k are stated to vary with SUSYA were already presented in a past article [3]. e the length scale rr( min ) thus to take the forms 3. DISCUSSIONS Gr( ) and kre ( ) respectively, the variable g and eZEH is essentially a conservation principle  ratios can be also rewritten as  r and applied on a zero-energy ground-state of vacuum and e g(var) ( ) quantitatively describing a form of “ex-nihilo”-like  r respectively: SUSYA thus predicts a creation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs e(var) ( ) (VPAPs). This SUSYA mainly proposes an eZEH- global/universal electro-gravitational seesaw based universal seesaw mechanism (applicable to all mechanism (EGSM) in which, when the

25

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

electromagnetic field (EMF) increases in strength (at macroscopic scales) the gravitational field (GF) 80 decreases in strength (at the same macroscopic scales) x p_var(10 m) AND when EMF decreases in strength at microscopic p_gr_en 60 scales (down to rmin scales comparable to the p_ph_mn Planck-length scale), the GF increases in strength at the same microcosmic Planck-like scale; the equation p_gl_tn 40 (2) of eZEH can be also rewritten as p_Zb_Zf 2 2 2 ge(r) x−(20 c) x +( r) q = , with solutions p_Hb_Hf p_W_e 20 2 4 2 c− cge( r) ( r) q mx(==) . g (r) 0 0 − 10 − 20 − 30 x The growth pattern of Gr( ) (with a decreasing Figure 1. The common graph of the ratios length scale r ) probably keeps values close to x Gmvar 10 −11 3 − 1 − 2 x ( ) G6.67 10 m kg s on both pmvar (10) = log , ( ) 10 G  macroscopic and microscopic scales but “suddenly” increases exponentially values when Ggr/ en Gph/ mn pgr/ en = log10 , pph/ mn = log10 , −1 G G becomes comparable with rlmin (10 Pl ) as also shown in a previous article [3]. A simple function Ggl/ tn GZb/ Zf p = log  , p = log  and which may model this special growth pattern of gl/ tn 10 G Zb/ Zf 10 G 44   would be (with a 5.7 10 being the G G inverse of the gravitational coupling constant We/ pWe/ = log10 , with integer exponential 2 G Gm −45   =e 1.8  10 ): G c x−0, 36 and (-36) value being chosen because

rmin /r r Gvar ( r) = G aG (7) min log10 − 36 1m 27 The graph of this simple Grvar ( ) function The huge GGPl (2.1 10 ) has many (illustrated in base-10 logarithmic units) is presented important implications indicating that micro(/ together with the previously estimated big G values quantum) black holes (MBHs) usually assigned a size (or the lower bounds of these big G values): comparable to Planck length 27 22 GG2.1 10 , GG1.2 10 , 3 −35 gr/ en ( ) ph/ mn ( ) lG= /c 1.62 10 m and a mass Pl ( ) ( ) 20 , 16 , GGgl/ tn (1.2 10 ) GGZb/ Zf 2.1 10 equal to the Planck mass GG1.7 1016 and GG2.6 1016 Hb/ Hf W/e 2.18 10−8kg (which is currently considered the (see next figure). A function similar to was approximate smallest mass of any MBH) may actually also proposed in a past article of the author [44] and have much smaller masses of transforms the classical Planck mass −22 5 2 mPl = c/ G mMBH = c/ GPl (  10 kg)(  10 GeV / c ) which relatively superposes to the mass-domain of the in a Planck mass series m( r) = c/ Gvar ( r) Pl(var) known EPs (with the heaviest known EP namely the 2 which may offer a very interesting new glimpse in the top-quark with rest mass m 174 GeV / c ): by domain of quantum/micro black holes (as explained tq next). emphasizing this much smaller

26

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

quasi-singularity (with large but finite density), with m1052 GeV / c , SUSYA strongly suggests MBH ( ) all EPs being redefined as quantum micro black holes that all EPs may be actually non-extreme stable governed by a very strong gravitational field acting (quantum) MBHs defined as non-point-like around Planck length scale. gravitational quasi-singularities (with very small but non-zero and non-infinitesimal 3D/4D volumes) 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS generated by a very strong gravitational field (VSGF) 27 Many thanks to the American physicists Mr. (measured by the scalar GGPl 2.1 10 ) acting Thomas J. Buckholtz1 and Mr. Gary Warren2: our −1 recent online discussions were very inspiring and close to scales. This possibility of rlmin (10 Pl ) motivating for me to write this paper which continues EPs being actually MBHs was also previously and clarifies many important aspects launched in my considered in a past article of the author [45]. If they previously published article [3]. are all truly MBHs, then EPs should have non-zero 6. COMPETING INTERESTS radii relatively close to which may be an rmin additional argument for choosing the function Author has declared that no competing interests rmin /r exist. Gvar ( r)(= G aG ) which maintains a relatively constant value in the macrocosmic and partially in the microcosmic domains of length scales and then grows very abruptly up to 45 27 10GGG( Pl )(  2.1  10 ) when getting close to rmin . 27 The largeness of GGPl (2.1 10 ) may also indicate the existence of possible large/bulk 4th (/5th etc.) extra-dimensions of our universe in which the hypothetical graviton may escape (immediately after being emitted by these MBH-equivalent EPs), explaining why gravity is measured as being much weaker at large macrocosmic scales compared to scales comparable to Planck scales (rmin ) . SUSYA also predicts the existence of a primordial ultra-heavy EP (and the heaviest of all EPs) called “W-tauonic boson” (Wtb) which may had been the main component of pBBQS and “parent” of all the other lighter EPs, including the main generator of the primordial massless Majorana neutrinos (Hfs and Zfs) which still exist today and compose the hypothetical superfluid Hf/Zf-based aether proposed by SUSYA.

4. FINAL CONCLUSIONS

This eZEH-based SUSYA essentially resurrects the aether theory in the form of a Hf/Zf-based superfluid aether and may also help solving the hierarchy problem, the infinite-density singularity 1. See his Research Gate page: problem (of General relativity) and crystallizes new www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Buckholtz directions in beyond the Standard model, including the prediction of a 2. See his Research Gate page: granular/quantum structure of spacetime near the www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Warren2 Planck scale and the existence of a pre-Big Bang

27

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

7. REFERENCES

1. Haber, Howie (2014). "Supersymmetry, Part I (Theory)" (PDF). Reviews, Tables and Plots. Particle Data Group (PDG). URL: https://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-susy-1-theory.pdf

2. Langacker, Paul (November 2010). "Meet a superpartner at the LHC". Physics. New York: American Physical Society. 3 (98). Bibcode: 2010PhyOJ...3...98L. DOI: 10.1103/Physics.3.98. ISSN 1943-2879. OCLC 233971234. URL: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v3/98

3. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi (June 29th, 2020). “On a Possible Logarithmic Connection between Einstein’s Constant and the Fine-Structure Constant, in Relation to a Zero-energy Hypothesis”, Physical Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: 2348-0130, Vol.: 24, Issue.: 5, pages 22-40, DOI 10.9734/PSIJ/2020/v24i530191. URL: www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30191. See also the following addendum-like paper containing some important periodic updates on this article: “Periodic updates of the article <>. DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.27118.43848. URL: www.researchgate.net/publication/342788487

4. Michio Kaku and Jennifer Trainer Thompson (1997). “Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for the Theory of the Universe” (book), Oxford University Press (1997) – page 189. URL: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SoZhv5feNQ4C&pg=PA189

5. Edward P. Tryon (1973). "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?", Nature, vol. 246, p.396–397, 1973. DOI: 10.1038/246396a0. URLs: (1) www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/246396a0; (2) www.nature.com/articles/246396a0

6. Alan H. Guth (1997). “The Inflationary Universe. The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. With a Foreword by Alan Lightman. (1st Edition)” (Hardcover, 384 Pages, Published 1997 by Jonathan Cape Ltd). ISBN 0-224-04448-6. Appendix A. DOI: 10.1119/1.18814. URLs: (1) www.amazon.com/Alan-Guth- Inflationary-Universe-Origins/dp/B008UBB3NE; (2) https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.18814

7. T. Yanagida (1980). "Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos". Progress of Theoretical Physics. 64 (3): 1103–1105. Bibcode: 1980PThPh..64.1103Y. DOI:10.1143/PTP.64.1103. URL: https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article/64/3/1103/1911881

8. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi (July 27th, 2017). “On a Plausible Triple Electro-gravito-informational Significance of the Fine Structure Constant”, Physical Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: 2348-0130, Vol.: 15, Issue.: 3, pages 1-19, DOI 10.9734/PSIJ/2017/34613. URL: www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/20204.

9. Palash B. Pal (2010). “Dirac, Majorana and Weyl fermions”. arXiv:1006.1718 [hep-ph]. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1718

10. Howard E. Haber (2019). “Massless Majorana and Weyl fermions cannot be distinguished”. URLs: http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/webpage/majnu.pdf and http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/index.html

11. T. Hottaa, T. Izubuchib and J. Nishimura (1998). “Massless Majorana fermion on the domain wall”. Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 63 (1998) 685-687. URLs: http://cds.cern.ch/record/334435 and https://cds.cern.ch/record/334435/files/9709075.pdf

12. Felix Finster (2006). “The Principle of the Fermionic Projector”. Providence, R.I: American Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-0-8218-3974-4. OCLC 61211466. URLs: https://www.worldcat.org/title/principle-of-the- fermionic-projector/oclc/61211466, https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0001048 (Chapters 0-4), https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0202059 (Chapters 5-8), https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210121 (Appendices)

13. Jungman G., Kamionkowski M. and Griest K (1995). Supersymmetric Dark Matter (ArXiv preprint) arXiv: hep-ph/9506380. URLs: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9506380 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9506380.pdf

28

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

14. Ferreira Elisa G. M. (May 7th, 2020). Ultra-Light Dark Matter (ArXiv preprint) arXiv: 2005.03254. URLs: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03254 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.03254.pdf

15. Einstein, Albert (1920). "Ether and the Theory of Relativity", republished in Sidelights on Relativity (Methuen, London, 1922). URL: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

16. Dirac, Paul A. M. (November 24, 1951). "Is there an Aether?". Letters to Nature. Nature. 168 (4282): 906– 907. Bibcode: 1951Natur.168..906D. DOI: 10.1038/168906a0. URL: www.nature.com/articles/168906a0

17. Davies, Paul (Editor) & Brown, Julian R. (Editor) (2010). “The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics” (Reissue Edition from the “Canto series”), Cambridge University Press; Reissue edition (May 5, 2010). ISBN-10: 9780521457286. ISBN-13: 978-0521457286. ASIN: 0521457289. URLs: (1) www.amazon.com/Ghost-Atom-Discussion-Mysteries-Quantum/dp/0521457289 and www.goodreads.com/book/show/100633.The_Ghost_in_the_Atom

18. Brunetti, R. & Zeilinger, A. (Editors) (2002). “Quantum (Un)speakables” (a collection of essays in commemoration of John S. Bell, which is is the result of the "Quantum (Un)speakables" conference organised by the University of Vienna), Springer, Berlin (2002), Chapter 22. URL: www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540427568

19. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 12, no. 4 (1987), page 22. URL: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

20. Popescu, Ioan-Iovitz (1982). “Ether and Etherons - A Possible Reappraisal of the Ether Concept”, translation from the Romanian Academy journal of physics Stud. Cercet. Fiz., vol. 34, 451-468 (1982). URLs: www.iipopescu.com/ether_and_etherons.html and https://editura.mttlc.ro/carti/Iovitz%20- %20Etherons.CLP.pdf

21. Dirac, Paul A. M. (April 26, 1952). "Is there an Aether?". Nature. 169 (4304): 702. Bibcode: 1952Natur.169..702D. DOI: 10.1038/169702b0. URL: www.nature.com/articles/169702b0

22. Sinha, K. P.; Sivaram, C.; Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1976). "Aether as a superfluid state of particle-antiparticle pairs". Foundations of Physics. Springer Nature. 6 (1): 65–70. DOI:10.1007/bf00708664. ISSN 0015-9018. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00708664

23. Sinha, K. P.; Sivaram, C.; Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1976). "The superfluid vacuum state, time-varying , and nonsingular cosmological models". Foundations of Physics. Springer Nature. 6 (6): 717–726. DOI: 10.1007/bf00708950. ISSN 0015-9018. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00708950

24. Sinha, K. P.; Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1978). "The superfluid as a source of all interactions". Foundations of Physics. Springer Nature. 8 (11–12): 823–831. DOI: 10.1007/bf00715056. ISSN 0015-9018. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00715056

25. Chimento, L.P.et al. (2010). ”Fermionic cosmologies”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 306 (2011) 012052. 5th International Workshop DICE2010 (IOP Publishing). DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/306/1/012052. URL: https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-e/ec72e1177e54dc891490ad4afdd1d3e5

26. E.P. Verlinde (2011). "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton". JHEP. 2011 (4): 29. arXiv: 1001.0785. Bibcode: 2011JHEP...04..029V. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029. S2CID 3597565. URLs: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FJHEP04%282011%29029 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

27. Yoshiharu KAWAMURA (2014). “Fermionic ”. arXiv:1406.6155. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6155

29

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

28. C. Bœhm and P. Fayet (2009). “Scalar Dark Matter candidates”. URLs: http://cds.cern.ch/record/618160 and http://cds.cern.ch/record/618160/files

29. Gasperini, M. (1987). "Singularity Prevention and Broken Lorentz Symmetry". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 4 (2): 485–494. Bibcode: 1987CQGra...4..485G. DOI:10.1088/0264-9381/4/2/026. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/4/2/026

30. Jacobson, Ted; Mattingly, David (2000). "Gravity and a Preferred Frame". arXiv: gr-qc/0007031. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.024028. URLs: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007031 and journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.024028; See also the review of Einstein aether theories published by the same authors in 2004 at these URLs: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410001 and www.researchgate.net/publication/1968543

31. Christian Heinicke(Cologne U.), Peter Baekler(Heinrich Heine U., Dusseldorf), Friedrich W. Hehl(Cologne U. and Missouri U.) (2005). „Einstein-aether theory, violation of Lorentz invariance, and metric-affine gravity“. Phys.Rev.D 72 (2005) 025012. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.025012. URLs: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504005, journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.025012, https://inspirehep.net/literature/679503

32. Tom Złośnik, Federico Urban, Luca Marzola, Tomi Koivisto (2018). “Spacetime and dark matter from spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry”. arXiv:1807.01100. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.01100

33. Richard A. Battye, Boris Bolliet, Francesco Pace, and Damien Trinh (2019). “Cosmologically viable generalized Einstein-aether theories”. Phys. Rev. D 99, 043515 (Vol. 99, Iss. 4 — 15 February 2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043515. URLs: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043515 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07805; See also a dedicated PowerPoint presentation (written by the same authors) at this URL: indico.cern.ch/event/527550/contributions/2519671/attachments/1447906/2231460/PONT2017_Trinh.pdf

34. Jussi Lindgren and Jukka Liukkonen (2020). ”The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as an Endogenous Equilibrium Property of Stochastic Optimal Control Systems in Quantum Mechanics”. Symmetry 2020, 12(9), 1533; DOI: 10.3390/sym12091533. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/9/1533

35. Marjanovic, Goran (1980-1993?). “About Ether” (URLs: http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovi and http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/O_Etru_e.pdf), the single source in English (a non-academic webarticle) which mentions Ohatrin’s, Anatolij Fedorovich (1989) paper called “Microleptonic fields” (original article in Russian isn’t available online, but some information on that original article is also available at these URLs: www.liveinternet.ru/users/valentin_tsmakaliuk/post130059289 [in Russian] and https://nimbouev.livejournal.com/60571.html [a text on Ohatrin’s “microleptons” written in rough English]). Indirect information also available here: http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/O_Etru_e.pdf

36. Battye, Richard A.; Moss, Adam (2014). "Evidence for Massive Neutrinos from Cosmic Microwave Background and Lensing Observations". Physical Review Letters. 112 (5): 051303. arXiv: 1308.5870. Bibcode: 2014PhRvL.112e1303B. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.051303. PMID 24580586. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5870

37. K. Assamagan, Ch. Brönnimann, M. Daum, H. Forrer, R. Frosch, P. Gheno, R. Horisberger, M. Janousch, P. -R. Kettle, Th. Spirig, and C. Wigger (1996). “Upper limit of the muon-neutrino mass and charged-pion mass from momentum analysis of a surface muon beam”. Phys. Rev. D 53, 6065 – Published 1 June 1996. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6065. URL: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6065

38. Barate, R.; Buskulic, D.; Decamp, D. et. al (1998). ”An Upper limit on the tau-neutrino mass from three- prong and five-prong tau decays”. Europ Phys J C 2 (1998): 395-406. doi:10.1007/s100520050149. URLs: (1) https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/work/26893; (2) www.researchgate.net/publication/30403534

30

Drăgoi; PSIJ, X(X): xxx-xxx, 20YY; Article no.PSIJ.57825

39. Patrignani, C. et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C, 40, 100001 (2016). See: Introduction to the neutrino properties listings, revised in August 2013 by P. Vogel (Caltech) and A. Piepke (University of Alabama). URL: https://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/listings/rpp2016-list-neutrino-prop.pdf

40. S. L. Glashow (1980). Lévy, Maurice; Basdevant, Jean-Louis; Speiser, David; Weyers, Jacques; Gastmans, Raymond; Jacob, Maurice (eds.). "The Future of Elementary Particle Physics". NATO Sci. Ser. B. 61: 687. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7197-7. ISBN 978-1-4684-7199-1. URL: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4684-7197-7

41. Mohapatra, R.N.; Senjanovic, G. (1980). "Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity non-conservation". Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (14): 912–915. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44..912M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912. URL: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912

42. Schechter, J.; Valle, J. (1980). "Neutrino masses in SU(2) ⊗ U(1) theories". Phys. Rev. 22 (9): 2227–2235. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..22.2227S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227. URL: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227

43. Dirac, P. A. M. (1928). "The Quantum Theory of the Electron". Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 117 (778): 610–624. Bibcode: 1928RSPSA.117..610D. DOI:10.1098/rspa.1928.0023. URL: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1928.0023

44. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi (July 2017). “On a Plausible Triple Electro-gravito-informational Significance of the Fine Structure Constant”. Physical Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: 2348-0130, Vol. 15, Issue 3. DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2017/34613. URLs: www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/20204 and www.researchgate.net/publication/318762059

45. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi (May 2018). “(Toy-model) A Simple “Digital” Vacuum Composed of Space Voxels with Quantized Energetic States”. Physical Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: 2348-0130, Vol.: 18, Issue.: 1). DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2018/41391. URLs: www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/24892 and www.researchgate.net/publication/325490276

31