Physical Science International Journal

24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no. PSIJ.63084 ISSN: 2348-0130

A Proposed SUSY Alternative (SUSYA) Based on a New Type of Seesaw Mechanism Applicable to All Elementary Particles and Predicting a New Type of Aether Theory

Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi1*

1The County Emergency Hospital Târgoviște, Dâmbovița, Romania.

Author’s contribution

The sole author designed, analysed, interpreted and prepared the manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2020/v24i1030218 Editors: (1) Dr. Lei Zhang, Winston-Salem State University, USA (2) Dr. Thomas F. George, University of Missouri-St. Louis, USA Reviewers: (1) Zafar Wazir, International Islamic University, Pakistan (2) Hassan H. Mohammed, Iraq University College, Iraq (3) Mustafa Salti, Mersin University, Turkey Complete Peer review History: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/63084

Received 20 September 2020 Short Research Article Accepted 24 November 2020 Published 11 December 2020

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a potentially viable “out-of-the-box” alternative (called “SUSYA”) to the currently known supersymmetry (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 mass symmetry/”conjugation” between EPs which predicts the zero/non-zero rest masses of all known/unknown EPs, EPs that are “conjugated” in boson- fermion pairs sharing the same electromagnetic charge (EMC). Z-SMEC is actually derived from an extended zero-energy hypothesis (eZEH) which is essentially a conservation principle applied on zero-energy (assigned to the ground state of vacuum) 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 Standard model, also indicating the true existence of the graviton and a possible bijective connection between the three types of neutrinos (all predicted to be actually Majorana fermions) and the massless bosons (photon, gluon and the hypothetical graviton), between the electron/positron 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

______

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]; Website: dragoii.com; Scientific pages: rg.dragoii.com, academia.dragoii.com; The main online source of this paper: https://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30218

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

predicting two distinct types of neutral massless fermions (NMFs) (modelled as mass-conjugates of the Higgs boson and Z boson respectively) which may be plausible constituents for a hypothetical lightest possible (hot fermionic) dark matter (LPDM) or, even more plausible, the main constituents of a superfluid fermionic vacuum/aether, as also proposed by the notorious Superfluid vacuum theory (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 energies 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).

ABBREVIATIONS

AT : Aether theory BB : Big Bang BH(s) : Black Hole(s) CBFP : Conjugated Boson-Fermion Pair CE : Characteristic/Determinantal (quadratic) Equation (of a matrix / characteristic polynomial of a matrix) CEP(s) : (Electromagnetically) Charged Elementary Particle(s) CP : Characteristic Polynomial (of a matrix) CPO : Composite (/non-elementary) physical object DM : Dark Matter EFE : Einstein’s Field Equations EGR : Einstein’s General Relativity EGSM : Electro-gravitational Seesaw Mechanism (Proposed by this SUSYA) EGT(s) : Entropic Gravity Theory(ies) eHUP : An Extension of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (proposed by this SUSYA) EMC : Electromagnetic Charge EMF : Electromagnetic Field en : Electron Neutrino EP(s) : Elementary Particle(s) ESR : Einstein’s Special Relativity EWF : Electroweak Field eZEH : An Extended Zero-energy Hypothesis Proposed by This SUSYA FSA : Fermionic Superfluid Aether FSC : Fine Structure Constant (the Electromagnetic Running Coupling Constant at Rest) FTG : Fatio/Le Sage theory of Gravitation GF : gravitational Field gl : Gluon gr : A (hypothetical massless) Graviton (proposed by SUSYA GU(T) : Grand Unification (theories) GW(s) : Gravitational Wave(s) Hb(s) : Higgs Boson(s) Hf : “Higgs fermion” (the Mass-Conjugate of the Higgs Boson, as Defined by this SUSYA) HF : Higgs Field hMC(s) : heavier Mass-conjugate(s) as Defined by This SUSYA HUP : Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle 20

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

LA : “Luminiferous Aether” LPDM : Lightest Possible (hot fermionic) Dark Matter LQ(s) : Leptoquark(s) of these types (proposed by SUSYA): uLQ (up-leptoquark), dLQ (down-leptoquark), cLQ (charm-leptoquark), sLQ (strange- leptoquark), tLQ (top-leptoquark) and bLQ (bottom-leptoquark) MBH(s) : Micro(/ quantum) Black Hole(s) MC(s) : Mass-Conjugate(s) as Defined by this SUSYA min : Minimum (energetic minimum etc) MM : Michelson–Morley (experiment) mn : Muon Neutrino MN(s) : Majorana Neutrino(s) MSSM : Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model NAPRF : Non-absolute Preferred Reference Frame NDBD : Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay NEP(s) : (Electromagnetically) Neutral Elementary Particle(s) NMF(s) : Neutral Massless Fermion(s) NMF-SV : NMF-based Superfluid Vacuum/aether nzrm : Non-Zero Rest Mass(es) (of Elementary Particles) ObU : Observable Universe OMME : Original Michelson–Morley experiment pBB(Q)S : Pre-Big Bang (quasi-) singularity (as defined by this SUSYA) ph : Photon PO(s) : Physical Object(s) q : Quark(s) of all Known Types: uq (up-quark), dq (down-quark), cq (charm-quark), sq (strange-quark), tq (top-quark) and bq (bottom-quark) QE : Quantum Entanglement QED : Quantum Electrodynamics QFT : Quantum Field Theory QTE : Quantum Tunnelling Effect SB : Symmetry Breaking SB-SUSY : Spontaneously Broken SUSY Variants SDM : Scalar Dark Matter SFF : Superfluid Fermionic Field SM : The Standard Model of Particle Physics SMEC : Seesaw Mechanism SMEC-1 : Type-1 Seesaw Mechanism SP : Superpartner Particle (as defined by SUSY) SRT : Special Relativity Theory SUSY : Supersymmetry (theories) SUSYA : SUSY-alternative (a theory Alternative to the Currently known Supersymmetry Theories) SV : Superfluid Vacuum/Aether SVT : Superfluid Vacuum Theory tn : Tau Neutrino ULDM : Ultra-Light Dark Matter VEP(s) : Virtual Elementary Particle(s) VPAP(s) : Virtual Particle-Antiparticle Pair(s) VSGF : Very Strong Gravitational Field (proposed/predicted by this SUSYA to manifest at Planck length scales) WILP(s) : Weakly-Interacting Lightest Particle(s) Wmb : (a hypothetical) “W-muonic boson” proposed by this SUSYA WPD : wave-particle duality Wtb : (a hypothetical) “W-tauonic boson” proposed by this SUSYA Zb(s) : Z-boson(s) ZEH : A Zero-Energy Hypothesis Proposed by This SUSYA ZEUH : Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis Zf : “Z-fermion” (the mass-conjugate of the Z boson, as defined by this SUSYA) Z-SMEC : a universal seesaw mechanism (as based on a Z mass matrix) proposed by this SUSYA 21

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

1. A ZERO-ENERGY HYPOTHESIS (ZEH) example), the currently known SUSY variants APPLIED ON VIRTUAL PARTICLE- have failed in gaining acceptance and lost a ANTIPARTICLE PAIRS (VPAPs) significant number of their initial supporters by the persistent failure in all the repetitive attempts 1.1 Introduction on supersymmetry to find experimental data supporting the true existence of any SP of any known EP. (SUSY) theories

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a conjectured This paper partially and briefly recapitulates and spacetime symmetry defined as a bijective continues the work from another recently pairing between the two main groups of published article by the same author [3] by elementary particles (EPs): (spin-1) bosons and proposing a potentially viable “out-of-the-box” (spin-1/2) fermions. In SUSY, each EP from one SUSY alternative (“SUSYA”) to the currently group would have an associated EP in the other known SUSY variants: SUSYA is a new type of (called its “superpartner” [SP]), the spin of which charge-based mass symmetry/”conjugation” differs by 1/2. The “standard” SUSY defines between EPs which predicts the zero/non-zero these SPs to be new and undiscovered EPs: for rest masses of all known/unknown EPs, EPs that example, SUSY predicts the existence of a are “conjugated” in boson-fermion pairs sharing bosonic EP called "selectron" (defined as the SP the same electromagnetic charge (EMC). of the electron) [1]; the hypothetical/predicted SUSYA is based on an extended zero-energy fermionic SPs of the known bosons are named hypothesis (eZEH) which is essentially a with the “-ino” suffix (and are generically named conservation principle applied on zero-energy “bosinos”, e.g. gluino is defined as the fermionic (assigned to the ground state of vacuum) that SP of the gluon). The simplest SUSY variants mainly states a general quadratic equation are the "unbroken"-SUSY variants which predict having a pair of conjugate boson-fermion mass that any pair of SPs would share the same mass solutions for each set of given coefficients. eZEH and the same internal quantum numbers proposes a general formula for all the rest (besides spin!): however, the most masses of all EPs from Standard model, also viable/plausible SUSY variants are the indicating the true existence of the graviton and a spontaneously broken SUSY variants (SB- possible bijective connection between the three SUSY) allowing SPs to differ in their rest types of neutrinos and the massless bosons masses. There are also extended SUSY variants (photon, gluon and the hypothetical graviton), which allow at least two SPs for a given known between the electron/positron and the W boson, fermionic/bosonic EP. Some SPs are predicted predicting at least three generations of to have rest masses at least 3 orders of leptoquarks (LQs) (defined here as the “mass- magnitude larger (from few TeV up to hundreds conjugates” of the three known generations of of TeV) than their corresponding known EPs: that quarks) and predicting two distinct types of is why recreating these SPs in the present LHC neutral massless (Majorana) fermions (NMFs) would be a difficult task [2]. (modelled as mass-conjugates of the Higgs boson and Z boson respectively) which may be If ever proved to be valid, SB-SUSY variants may plausible constituents for a hypothetical lightest help solve many problems of the Standard model possible (hot fermionic) dark matter (LPDM) or, (SM), including the hierarchy problem, gauge even more plausible, the main constituents of a coupling unification, dark matter etc.: however, superfluid fermionic vacuum/aether, as also none of the known SB-SUSY variants has any proposed by the notorious Superfluid vacuum direct and/or indirect experimental theory (SVT) (with various variants in which the evidence/support so far. If any SP (of any known physical vacuum is modeled as a either a EP) will ever be found in the future, its rest mass bosonic or fermionic superfluid). would indicate the scale at which SUSY is broken. 1.3 A Proposed Zero-energy Hypothesis (ZEH) 1.2 Motivating Points on this SUSY- alternative (SUSYA) 1.3.1 An introduction on ZEH and the main statement of ZEH Although very appealing at first (and still quite interesting and seductive theory which may offer SUSYA is mainly based on a zero-energy important explanations to notorious problems in hypothesis (ZEH) applied on any virtual particle- modern physics, like the hierarchy problem for antiparticle pair (VPAP) popping out from the 22

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

42 quantum vacuum at hypothetical length scales The realness condition cq 0 implies comparable to Planck scale: ZEH was already ge launched by the author in a previous article [3]. the existence of a minimum (and mass- ZEH can be regarded as an extension of the independent!) distance between any two EPs notorious zero-energy universe hypothesis (composing the same VPAP) 21− (ZEUH) which was actually first proposed by the r= q Gk/ c 10 l (for German theoretical physicist Pascual Jordan (as min e Pl recounted by the Russian-American theoretical 12 q e,, 33 e  e and with l being the physicist George Gamow in his autobiography (e) Pl called “My World Line” [4]) and first Planck length): obviously, for distances lower independently developed and published as a than r the previous equation has only scientific article in Nature journal many years min later by the American physicist Edward Tryon [5], imaginary solutions xm= for any charged EP; assuming minimal curvature (thus an by this fact, ZEH offers a new interpretation of almost/practically flat spacetime) at Planck scale the Planck length, as being the approximate (like also presumed by Einstein’s General distance under which charged EPs cannot have relativity [EGR] when calculating the equations of rest masses/energies valued with real numbers. geodesics by calculus, a sine-qua-non condition For example and more specifically, for qe= , for EGR to remain valid down to those ke2 rl/= 11.71−1 with e −1 scales). Presuming the gravitational and min Pl 0 0 =( 137 ) electrostatic inverse-square laws to be valid c down to Planck scales and considering a VPAP being the fine structure constant (FSC) (the value composed from two electromagnetically-charged of the electromagnetic running coupling constant EPs (CEPs) each with non-zero rest mass m at rest). 2 Both generic xm= conjugated solutions of the and energy Em = mc , electromagnetic charge previous equation (3) indicate that, because m q and negative energies of gravitational has discrete values only, g (and Eg implicitly) 2 attraction Eg =− Gm/ r [6] and electrostatic and e (and Eq implicitly) should all have 2 discrete values only. More interestingly, for attraction Eqe=− k q/ r , ZEH specifically neutral EPs (NEPs) with q = 0(C) (which states that: 2 implies geq = 0 ) and r rmin ( 0 m) , 20EEEm+ g + q = (1) xm= solutions may take both:

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

BBM+224 2 4 2 x = , which are the conjugated c− cge q  2 mx== (3) ( ) solutions of the characteristic/determinantal g 23

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

22some known bosonic EPs and fermionic EPs, but (quadratic) equation (CE) x− xB − M = 0 also between some known bosonic EPs and derived from the characteristic polynomial (CP) some predicted still unknown fermionic EPs and A' (= x  I − A) of the 2x2 symmetrical mass between some known fermionic EPs and some 2 predicted still unknown bosonic EPs. 0 M matrix A =  (with B being the Similarly to SUSY, eZEH additionally states that MB each pair of MCs actually resulted from a broken- Majorana mass component of the neutrinos and symmetry of a (bosonic) field quantized by a M being the Dirac mass component of the boson with much higher rest energy-mass that neutrinos) [7]. CP is the polynomial which is the rest-masses/energies of those two MCs invariant under matrix similarity and has the (composing that MCs pair). 10 eigenvalues of A as roots; I = is the 22 2  The c// = rc G ratio is redefined as a 01 g ( ) 2x2 identity matrix with 1-values on the main “center” of mass-symmetry/conjugation between diagonal and 0-values on the secondary any two MCs proposed by SUSYA (as based on diagonal). This very important aspect of eZEH is its eZEH), which “center” is mainly determined by detailed later, in the subsection of this paper  (= G /r) ratio, thus by strength of the dedicated to the three known generations of g neutrinos. gravitational field (measured by a possibly variable/scale-dependent G scalar) possibly 1.3.2 A proposed extended ZEH (eZEH), varying with the length scale r when −1 defined as the “core” of SUSYA approaching rl10 . min ( Pl ) This more “ambitious” extended ZEH (eZEH) (proposed by SUSYA and defined as its “core”) is It is also important to notice that equation (3) of actually a stronger/stricter conjecture than ZEH eZEH does not allow the existence of because eZEH assumes and applies the main electromagnetically charged EPs with zero rest- equation of ZEH (3) not only on virtual particle- mass, thus it does not allow the existence of antiparticle pairs (VPAPs) but also on specific elementary Weyl fermions. boson-fermion pairs which share the same zero/non-zero electromagnetic charge (EMC) Important remark. In other words, formula (3) and which are defined and coined by eZEH as allows NEPs to be divided in two major families “mass-conjugates” (MCs): these MCs (with (NEPs with non-zero rest mass and NEPs distinct zero/non-zero rest masses, but sharing possessing only relativistic mass) which is an the same EMC) are the SUSYA-proposed indirect proof that m is a function of q (as alternative to the concept of partner-superpartner requested/imposed by q ) and not vice-versa, as pair (or vice versa) used in SUSY. Furthermore, if the q quantum also imposes fixed/discrete eZEH not only defines various MCs, but also states that the heavier MC can always decay into gradients m = m21 − m( 0 kg) = f( q) its lighter MC partner plus other EPs in respect to between various types of generic EPs (“1” and the energy conservation principle: however, the “2”). eZEH additionally states that the two decay of a heavier MC (hMC) into its lighter MC conjugated elementary mass solutions is stated to not always be the single mode in which that hMC decays. 2 4 2 m = c  c −g  e q /  g (of eZEH’s ( ) eZEH additionally (co-)states/conjectures that: if main equation) actually define a boson-fermion a specific bosonic EP is its own antiparticle (like pair (with conjugated masses) called here in the case of the photon, the gluon, the Z boson “conjugated boson-fermion pair” (CBFP). eZEH and the Higgs boson) then its (mass-)conjugated actually conjectures a new type of boson-fermion fermionic partner is also its antiparticle, thus it is symmetry/”mass-conjugation” based on eZEH’s actually a Majorana fermion; in other words, main quadratic equation (with partially unknown “being its own antiparticle” is thus a property coefficients): eZEH mainly predicts two distinct conjectured by eZEH/SUSYA to be shared by types of massless neutral (Majorana) fermions both MCs. eZEH establishes some interesting (modelled as conjugates of the Higgs boson and symmetries (called "conjugations") between Z boson respectively) with zero charge and zero 24

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

rest mass (which couple only gravitationally and charged EPs are predicted to pop out from thus may plausibly be the main constituents of vacuum as VPAPs). dark matter or even the constituents of a 2 hypothetical fermionic superfluid aether/vacuum), The realness condition hc/0−e q a bijective mass-conjugation between the three 2 types of neutrinos and the massless bosons (hc// ke q r) can be written as a (gluon, photon and the hypothetical graviton), a function of the fine structure constant (FSC)/ relation of mass-conjugation between the 2 electron/positron and the W± boson and at least ke −1 alpha constant  =e 137 (the three generations of leptoquarks (LQs) (defined 0 c ( ) here as the “mass-conjugates” of the three known generations of quarks) (see next). value of the electromagnetic running coupling constant at rest) by succesive reduction of both 1.3.3 The other equations of eZEH terms (until obtaining 0 as the right term of the inequality) to The alternative variant of the main quadratic 2 2 2 equation of eZEH and its implications. In the 1  q 2  q 2 r kq  e <=>  e <=>  e <=> case of a virtual (charged) particle-antiparticle  hc  c  c pair (VPAP) (with total rest mass 2m and total 2 2 2 rest energy 22E= mc ) produced by a 2 r ( q/ e) ke m  e up to: photon with wavelength  and relativistic energy  c

Eph == hc/2 Em , equation (1) becomes: 2 2 r ( q/ e)  0 (3’’) EEEph +gq + = 0  (1’) 20EEE + + = ( m g q ) The previous equation (3’’) offers a new Defining the same ratios  = Gr/ and g interpretation of FSC (0 ) which can be redefined as the lower bound imposed by nature ee= kr/ the previous equation is equivalent to 2 an even simpler quadratic equation with 2 r ( q/ e) for the adimensional ratio  = to unknown xm(= ) : r  allow the existence of elementary rest masses 22 measured by real numbers, with = . gex+(  q − hc /0 ) = (2’) r(min) 0 The previous equation is easily solvable and has Although this last formula (3’’) has the two possible solutions which are both reals (with disadvantage to not allow the estimation of that one being a positive real) only if minimum (and mass-independent!) distance between any two EPs (composing the same 2 hc/0−e q : 21− VPAP) r= q Gke / c 10 l min ( Pl ) 2 (obtained from formula 3), but, instead, it offers a hc/ − e q new important and fundamental interpretation of mx(=) =  (3’) g FSC indicating that FSC has a profound important a gravitational/entropic significance

From the previous formula (3’) it is obvious that, also (at least as interpreted by this eZEH-based for elementary rest masses m to take only SUSYA): more specifically 0 can be redefined discrete/quantized values,  , e and g should as an adimensional threshold of vacuum which needs to be surpassed so that a high energy all have only discrete values, at least in the photon to can create fermionic mass (that can interval of length scales close/comparable to couple gravitationally and generate a negative 21− r= q Gk/ c 10 l (scales at which min e ( Pl ) Eg scalar) in form of charged VPAPs.

25

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

Furthermore (and for qe ), by replacing r with 2 2 r ( q/ e)  c rmin in formula (3’’) we may easily obtain the log  (4-iii)  2 2 approximate spectrum of minimum photonic Gm wavelengths  r , that can create a The previous inequality (4’’’) is actually min min e equivalent to these ones: charged VPAP in our universe: 2 2r( q/e) /  c 2 e  (4-iv) 2 rmin ( q/ e) 2 e = Gm  (4) 0 2 r  min 860rl  86  c e ( min Pl ) 2 (4-v) 0 m  2 2r( q/e) / Ge with <=> 2 −12  c −r q/e / <=>  10ll ,10 (4’) ( ) min Pl Pl me (4-vi) G and an average (av) minimum photonic wavelength: The exponential function represented by the right term of the previous inequality (4-vi) can be also (4’’) regarded as the equation of a logarithmic spiral min(av)lrPl ( 10 min) ) with radius ku (with and R( u) = a e a k Based on the inequality (3’’), eZEH also predicts being non-zero real constants) and with that, for qC= 0 , the generalized ratio c 2 2 R( u) == m f () , a = , k =−(q/ e) 2 r ( q/ e)  G (qr,, ) = is zero thus r  and the variable angle (measured in radians)  r (0Cr , ,)(= 0) doesn’t satisfy the inequality  ur=( / )0 . 2 (3’’) r (qr,, )  0 : that is why, eZEH 2( q/ e) predicts/confirms that photons cannot create pairs of neutral fermions, but only pairs of If interpreted as a non-coincidence, the previous charged fermions (which obviously couple inequality (4-vi) suggests/indicates that the nzrm electromagnetically): implicitly and as a of EPs (with nzrm) depends inverse- checkpoint conclusion, photons are predicted proportionally with the strength of the by eZEH/SUSYA to can only generate pairs of gravitational field (GF) (measured by big G EPs to which they can couple scalar) at those r -scales (comparable to Planck electromagnetically (thus only pairs of charged scale) so that: a stronger GF (measured by EPs). larger big G values at r scales, thus larger *  (= Gr/ ) ratios) “rips” photons in “lighter An important parenthesis. The author has also g reported in a past article [8] that pieces” (allowing only smaller rest-masses for any EP with nzrm) AND a weaker GF allows c  log  1  0.2 (with mx and my larger nzrm for any EP at those same scales 02( ) Gmxy m (this simple principle also applies to macrocosm where the weak GF at large/macrocosmic scales being the non-zero rest masses [nzrm] of any allows for very large celestial bodies to exist and two identical or distinct EPs with nzrm) which, the predicted progressively stronger GF at combined with inequality (3’’) and applied to any microcosmic scales allows for only physical VPAP (composed from two EPs with nzrm objects with very small mass to exist, like in the mxy== m m ), implies that: case of EPs); this fact also suggests that nzrm may have a “secret” geometrical meaning 26

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

“encoded” in a possible quantum structure of (fermionic) superfluid aether/vacuum. In a first spacetime vacuum at those r scales (as already step and defining the unit of measure of explained and detailed in the previous article of 2 2−− 2 1  = 2/cm as , eZEH the author [3]). g ( ) u= m s kg * directly estimates  for the Z boson (Zb) and Returning to equation (3’) g Higgs boson (Hb) (with both Zb and Hb having hc/ − q2 m = e , because the non-zero rest energies) such as  2 42 g g() Zb(=2c / m Zb ) 10 u and elementary rest masses mf= () take only 2 41 g() Hb(=2c / m Hb )  8  10 u respectively. discrete/quantized values, the generalized 2 eZEH states that both Zb and Hb have two (wave)length functions rmin ( q) = q Gke / c distinct correspondent/conjugated massless 2 neutral fermions formally called the “Z fermion” 2rq( )( q/ e) 42 and  (q) = min obviously can (Zf) (which shares the same  10 u  g() Zb ( ) 0 with Zb) and the “Higgs fermion” (Hf) (which take only quantized values as long as the 41 12 shares the same  8 10 u with Hb) electromagnetic charge q e,, 33 e  e is gb(H ) ( ) known to take only quantized values: these with zero rest masses discretely-valued generalized (wave)length 22 mZf=( c − c) /0 g() Zb ( = kg) and functions rq and  q strongly suggest min ( ) ( ) 22 (thus both that space is actually quantized/granular around mHf=( c − c) /0 g(H b ) ( = kg) −12 Planck scale  10ll ,10 and moving with the speed of light in vacuum and min Pl Pl possessing only relativistic masses instead of allows only discrete distances between EPs (of rest masses). Based on the previously defined the same VPAP) at those scales. Implicitly, −1 rl10 , we then obtain SUSYA predicts a spacetime vacuum with two min ( Pl ) main essential features: (1) granular/quantized 16 2 10 G : structure around Planck scales and (2) “ex-nihilo” GrZb(=  g( Zb ) min ) =GrHb(  g( Hb ) min ) creation of VPAPs at those same Planck scales based on these huge predicted lower bounds for measure by rqmin ( ) and  (q) . big G values at Planck scales, eZEH states that Eg may reach the same magnitude as Eq For the beginning, let us start to estimate the 22 Eg E q  g m  e q at scales values of g for the known electromagnetically- ( ) comparable to Planck scale, which implies a neutral EP (NEP). For q = 0(C) , the conjugated solutions expressed by formula (3) simplify for variabile big G GGGvar  , Hb/ Zb which may 22 16 any NEP such as mNEP =( c c ) /g , significantly increase (up to 10 G and possibly 22 larger values) with the drop of length scale down resulting  =c c/ m . g() NEP ( ) NEP to .

1.3.4 Two predicted types of neutral massless fermions (NMFs) proposed as Because Hb and Zb are their own antiparticles, candidate constituents of a predicted their eZEH-predicted mass conjugates Hf and Zf fermionic superfluid aether/vacuum are also defined (and predicted) by SUSYA to be (SV) actually their own particles thus to be massless Majorana fermions. Because Zb is a spin-1 Focusing on Higgs boson and Z boson and vector boson, SUSYA also defines its mass- their eZEH-predicted correspondent/ conjugate Zf as being a Majorana vector-fermion. conjugated neutral massless fermions Because Hb is a scalar boson, SUSYA also (NMFs) which may compose a so-called defines its mass-conjugate Hf as being a Majorana scalar-fermion. Being both fermions, Zf 27

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

and Hf are also stated by SUSYA to obey Pauli’s potential candidates for dark energy identified exclusion principle. Regarding the Zfs (vector- with a Hf/Zf-based superfluid aether and even fermions), the left-handed Zfs are stated to form candidates for cold dark matter if/when isospin doublets, while the right-handed Zfs are agglutinating in larger clumps of Hfs and Zfs with stated to form isospin singlets (like all the other co-centered circular trajectories) [10,11]. vector-fermions from the Standard Model). In a checkpoint conclusion, Hf and Zf are thus SUSYA defines Hfs and Zfs to be maximally massless Majorana fermions (aka massless stable and to cannot decay (thus with practically Majorana neutrinos) which, like any massless infinite lifetimes): more exactly, Hfs and Zfs are neutrino in a 3+1-dimensional quantum field stated to be actually the final ultra-stable theory, can be described either as a theory of a products of various possible decays of heavier massless four-component Majorana fermion [the EPs (mainly the decays of their heavier mass- zero mode of the Majorana fermion] or a theory conjugates). Furthermore, SUSYA retrodicts that of a two-component massless Weyl fermion: the Big Bang would had mainly and firstly these two formulations are indistinguishable, as produced Hfs and Zfs (two types of very weakly they arise from exactly the same Lagrangian interacting EPs) in huge quantities which when expressed in terms of two-component compose a superfluid aether (SA) identified with fermions; in other words, a massless neutrino our 3D non-empty space (as explained later in can be modeled either as a Majorana neutrino or this section). In this way, SUSYA actually a Weyl neutrino [9]. In some variants of SUSY, retrodicts a pre-Big-Bang singularity which may massless Majorana fermions (like Hf and Zf) are had generated both the spacetime-“scene” considered hypothetical “natural” superpartners (identified with this Hf/Zf-based SA) and all EP- of neutral spin-1 or spin-0 bosonic EPs, as also based physical objects (playing various “actor”- proposed by this SUSYA: since the three known like “roles” on this aetherial spacetime “scene” generations of neutrinos have been found to identified with SA): this approach of SUSYA has have non-zero rest masses, Hf and Zf both some similarities with a special type of TOE partially save SUSY by replacing it with this (theory of everything) called ”Causal fermion SUSYA: furthermore (as explained in the next system“ (firstly introduced by Felix Finster and sections of this paper), the three known collaborators) which derives both spacetime and generations of neutrinos are proposed by the objects therein as secondary objects from the SUSYA to be actually the mass conjugates struct ures of an underlying causal fermion of the photon, the gluon and a hypothetical system [12]. graviton. These eZEH-predicted neutral massless An electron and such a massless Majorana (Majorana) fermions (NMFs) Zf and Hf are also neutrino (like Hf and Zf) can actually interact (but quite distinct (and almost the “opposite”) from the only locally) via charged-W exchange (as W so-called neutralinos predicted by a SUSY boson has a very short mean lifetime and variant known as the Minimal Supersymmetric mediates only local interactions at very low Standard Model (MSSM) which defines length scales comparable to the size of a neutralinos as ultra-heavy superpartners of the −15 Zb and Hb with rest masses between 300GeV proton/neutron of about 10 m ). Note that in a and 1TeV: this is another main difference (in Standard Model with a massless neutrino, there predictions) between SUSYA and SUSY/MSSM. is no right-handed neutrino. The existence of a Zf and Hf are actually the opposite of the so- conserved lepton number in the theory with called WIMPs (weakly-interacting massive massless neutrinos is the reason one usually particles, as neutralinos were also defined by favors the Weyl over the Majorana form of the MSSM and were standardly regarded in the past theory. as plausible constituents of the dark matter [13]): by contrast, Zf and Hf are actually defined by Like all Majorana fermions (which possess only SUSYA as “weakly-interacting lightest particles” positive/negative helicity which coincides with (“WILPs”) which are stated by SUSYA to interact chirality for massless spinors), Hf and Zf are also only (and very weakly!) via gravitational stated by SUSYA to cannot possess intrinsic force/field (by their very low but non-zero electric or magnetic moments, but only toroidal relativistic energy which couples gravitationally). moments (a consequence of their helicity) and that is why they minimally interact with the Hf and Zf are stated by SUSYA to may even electromagnetic field (which makes them compose a hypothetical “lightest possible 28

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

(fermionic hot) dark matter” (“LPDM”), which is perpetuum mobile of 3rd kind (which completely even lighter than the so-called ultra-light dark eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to matter (ULDM) which is a class of bosonic dark maintain motion forever due to its mass inertia). matter (DM) models where the hypothetical DM is stated to be composed of bosons with non- Because light was proved since the nineteenth zero rest energies in the interval century to be an electromagnetic transverse −22 wave with many other interesting wave-like 10 eV,1eV (which bosons may form a  ) properties (refraction, diffraction etc), many old Bose-Einstein condensate or a superfluid on physicists believed that, to understand light, it galactic scales) [14]. LPDM was previously called was necessary to understand the special “hot” because Zf and Hf are defined as being characteristics of the light “medium” (called massless neutral fermions, thus moving at the “luminiferous aether” [LA]) without which the speed of light in vacuum (from where the “hot” movement of the “light-wave” appeared as attributed comes from, in the sense of “very unconceivable (and still appears as such to many fast/mobile”). physicists today). Many old physicists developed complex models in order to explain this LA with Even more ambitiously, SUSYA proposes Zf and special and apparently contradictory qualities Hf as plausible main constituents of a superfluid (which models were unsuccessful however): LA fermionic vacuum/aether, as also proposed by had to be very thin and elastic (a “jelly”-like the notorious Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT) (in medium that would allow solid objects to pass which the physical vacuum is modeled as a through it without resistance) but, at the same bosonic/fermionic superfluid). Furthermore (and time, it had to be very dense (a solid-like medium due to Pauli exclusion principle), this hypothetical with high elasticity so that to allow the (Zf&Hf-based) fermionic superfluid aether (FSA) transmission of light as transverse wave at such (proposed by SUSYA) may not be infinitely high speeds); actually, in the last two decades of compressible (to an infinite density) which the nineteenth century, the best minds in physics suggests that a FSA-based pre-Big Bang from that time intensively brainstormed in their singularity (pBBS), if it existed, may not had attempt to accurately describe LA. been a true gravitational singularity, but only a gravitational quasi-singularity with a large but The initial concept of a “luminiferous aether” (LA) finite density (as also detailed in the next (as a medium conceived for the electromagnetic sections of this paper). waves to exist at the first place at the “vibrations/oscillations of something”) was initially The ultimate goal of SVT is to offer a common discarded after the negative results of the frame for unifying quantum mechanics with notorious Michelson–Morley (MM) experimental general relativity: that is why SVT can be sessions (performed in 1887) and of other MM- regarded as both a candidate theory for quantum like experiments that excluded aether in its initial gravity and also an extension of the Standard definition of an “absolute reference frame” and Model (SM); SVT aims to model all known sparked the advent of the special relativity theory interactions and elementary particles (EPs) as (SRT): however, MM and MM-like experiments different manifestations of the same superfluid cannot exclude a non-absolute preferred vacuum/aether. However, SUSYA is slightly reference frame (NAPRF) which can exist in fact; different from SVT, because SUSYA actually the hypothetical “sea/ocean” composed of NMFs propose that there are actually EPs that “play the like Z-fermions (Zfs) and Higgs-fermions (Hfs) role” of standard/“actor”-EPs (composing both (moving at the speed of light, as proposed by normal matter/radiation and dark matter: the SUSYA) may be indeed a plausible candidate for “contained” compartment of our universe) and such NAPRF, as explained next. other EPs (like Hf and Zf) that play the role of non-standard/”scenic”-EPs (the “container” It is often erroneously stated that the purpose of compartment, the “vacuum scene” of our the original MM experiment (OMME) was to universe). determine the existence of the aether: actually, Michelson assumed from the start that the aether The movement of any non-Hf/Zf EP (or of any existed, and was only attempting to measure the composite physical body composed from such expected effects it would produce if it was indeed EPs) through this hypothetical superfluid Hf/Zf- a static frame (however, the OMME failed to based aether/sea would be practically produce the expected results from a static frictionless, thus our universe may be actually a aether). It is also erroneously reported (in many 29

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

histories of physics) that the OMME and other MM-like experiments showed “no” changes in the Some important historical mentions of the speed of light in any direction: this first so-called aether. In 1920 Einstein gave a speech entitled "null" result actually “hided” some change in the "Aether and Relativity Theory" to an audience in interference pattern (as found in all MM-like Germany: “We may say that according to the experiments), but the effect was too small and general theory of relativity space is endowed with interpreted as falling within experimental error physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there (leading to this “null-results” interpretation). exists an Aether. According to the general theory Actually, at those historical times (from 1887 to of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; 1920 and even later), the inconclusive results of for in such space there not only would be no MM/MM-like experiments weren’t actually propagation of light, but also no possibility of interpreted by the old physicists as the non- existence for standards of space and time existence of aether but were generally (and (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any indeed correctly!) interpreted as the aether, if it space-time intervals in the physical sense. But existed, couldn’t be a perfectly stationary this Aether may not be thought of as endowed medium (with moving Earth possibly dragging a with the quality characteristic of ponderable certain amount of co-moving aether in its media, as consisting of parts which may be movement): some old physicists even emitted tracked through time. The idea of motion may not the hypothesis that maybe the act of Earth be applied to it.” [15]. moving through the aether affected the measuring instruments (used in MM/MM-like Paul Dirac also wrote in 1951: "Physical experiments) -- in the 1890s Lorentz proposed knowledge has advanced much since 1905, the notorious Lorentz transformations, which notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and describe the length-contraction of a moving the situation [about the scientific plausibility of object when viewed by an observer at various Aether] has again changed. If one examines the speeds. Even if Einstein’s special (and then question in the light of present-day knowledge, general) relativity theories made it possible to one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by consider the existence of a totally empty region relativity, and good reasons can now be of space, the quantum field theory (QFT) advanced for postulating an Aether ... We have requires a non-empty vacuum (at least when now the velocity at all points of space-time, measured at shortest time scales in which high- playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It energy particles interact with the electromagnetic is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real field): QFT actually treats vacuum as a place physical thing. Thus, with the new theory of where a large variety of virtual (charged) particle- electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual antiparticle pairs (VPAPs) may spontaneously particles] we are rather forced to have an and momentarily come into existence and then Aether." [16]. disappear (as allowed by the notorious Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle); furthermore, In 1986, when interviewed by Paul Davies in the propagation of electromagnetic or "The Ghost in the Atom" John Bell suggested electroweak fields through “empty” space is that an Aether theory might help resolve the EPR facilitated by the vacuum polarization (resulting paradox by allowing a reference frame in which from the behavior of charged VPAPs). signals go faster than light. He also suggested that Lorentz contraction may be consistent with However, Einstein’s special relativity (ESR) and relativity (and could produce an aether theory general relativity (EGR) both had and have an perfectly consistent with the OMME). Bell also essential contribution to the evolution of modern suggested that the aether was wrongly rejected physics because they strongly supported the mainly on purely philosophical grounds: "what is most probably correct hypothesis that our unobservable does not exist" [p. 49]. Einstein universe contained no fixed points and no found the non-aether theory simpler and more stationary reference system (thus everything was elegant, but, in Bell’s opinion, that doesn't in movement relative to each other), which is rigorously rule out the existence of the aether also the case of an aether composed from the [17]. eZEH-proposed very low- interacting Zfs and Hfs moving in a Brownian-like manner at the speed Gerard 't Hooft also regards quantum (field) of light: thus, at least in principle, our proposed theory (QFT) not as a complete field theory (but Zf/HF-based aether doesn’t contradict ESR nor only an emergent phenomenon arising from a EGR. deeper level of possibly subquantum dynamics) 30

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

and conjectured in 2002 that: "We should not (as also detailed in a previous paper of the forget that quantum mechanics does not really author [3]). describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic (2) Quantum theory is non-local (a consequence results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that of Bell's theorem), which shows that Bell's any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the inequality must hold in any Einstein-causal Planck scale would lead to processes that are so realistic theory. On the other hand, quantum complicated to describe, that one should expect entanglement (QE) appears to violate Einstein apparently stochastic fluctuations in any causality: however, if one gives up Einstein approximation theory describing the effects of all causality (the base of Einsteinian “realism”), one of this at much larger scales. It seems quite essentially has to go back to the AT proposed by reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic Lorentz, and to find an extension of it applicable theory for the Planck domain. One might to gravity. speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an (3) The equations of Einstein’s general relativity ingenious technique to handle this dynamics (EGR) generate singularity-type solutions which statistically [18]." indicate an intrinsic flaw in EGR: AT has the potential to eliminate the main singularities In one of his latest published articles, the famous (unavoidable for the current form of EGR): the physicist Louis de Broglie also expressed his pre-Big-Bang singularity and the black holes. The opinion on a hypothetical subquantum aether: "If aether is considered complete if it is defined for a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, all coordinates. A solution of AT is considered knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It complete if it is defined for all values of the certainly is of quite complex character. It could preferred coordinates: in contrast, a solution of not serve as a universal reference medium, as EGR is considered complete only if the metric is this would be contrary to relativity theory. […] geodetically complete. Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion (4) EGR has also a major conceptual problem incomplete [19].” with energy and momentum conservation: the conserved stress–energy–momentum In 1982, the Romanian physicist and pseudotensor of EGR (which behaves as tensor academician Ioan-Iovitz Popescu launched an only with respect to restricted coordinate article in which he defines the hypothetical aether transformations) doesn’t allow a physical as "a form of existence of the matter […] which interpretation in the standard spacetime differs qualitatively from the common (atomic and interpretation of EGR (where all physical fields molecular) substance or radiation (photons), and should to be tensor fields). In contrast with EGR, which is “governed by the principle of inertia” and AT has standard local densities of energy and which is composed of “some particles of momentum also for the gravitational field. exceedingly small mass, traveling chaotically at speed of light […] called etherons [20].” The weak points of an aether theory (AT). The harmonic condition of an AT (which is a physical The potential advantages of “resurrecting” equation) is not an Euler-Lagrange equation (and the famous “aether”. An aether theory (AT) not derived from a Lagrange formalism): in may allow solving some serious problems of contrast, EGR in its spacetime interpretation is modern physics: preferable, because it has a Lagrange formalism (defined by the Hilbert-Einstein Lagrangian). The (1) AT presents the gravitational field as a fact that AT hasn’t got a Lagrange formalism condensed matter theory on a 2D generates some other problems too, especially Euclidean/plane background: however, such the fact that Noether’s theorem cannot be used theories have to be quantized thus impose to derive energy and momentum conservation quantum gravity, which implies that aether is not laws: this issue is also very problematic in the truly continuous (at any length scale) but EGR spacetime interpretation where there is no probably quantized below a specific length-scale local energy and momentum density for the (a “granular/atomized” aether) and that is what gravitational field, but only a pseudotensor SUSYA also states by defining the minimum (which does not allow for a physical interpretation 21− in EGR). The lack of Lagrange formalism in AT length allowed r e Gk/ c 10 l min e Pl also makes quantization more difficult: 31

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

quantization would have been much simpler if observe those large fluctuations as non- there would be a local energy density to define relativistic objects. the Hamilton operator. Several SVT variants have been proposed (with SUSYA solves at least in part the problem of various proposed structures and properties of the spacetime/gravitational quantization by background SV): however, in absence of introducing a minimum length allowed in our observational data (which would rule out some of 21− them), these SVT variants are being pursued universe rmin  e Gke / c 10 lPl (derived independently and SUSYA also proposes a SV from the main equation of eZEH). composed from these two types of neutral (Majorana) massless fermions (NMFs) (Zfs and The superfluid vacuum/aether theory (SVT). In Hfs) moving in a Brownian-like manner (in all 1951 P.A.M. Dirac published two papers where directions) with a maximum allowed speed in our he pointed out that quantum fluctuations in the universe vmax (approximated to the speed of flow of the aether should taken into account [16, light in vacuum): these SUSYA-proposed NMFs 21]: more specifically, Dirac applied the are stated to form a superfluid fermionic field Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (HUP) to the (SFF) which is stated to also obey Fermi–Dirac velocity of aether at any point of spacetime and statistics (governed by Pauli’s exclusion principle demonstrated that the velocity isn’t a well-defined and by canonical anticommutation relations quantity, but distributed over various possible rather than the canonical commutation relations values (thus aether could be modeled by a wave of bosonic fields). The FF-“prototype” is the Dirac function representing the perfect vacuum state field, which describes the collective behavior of for which all possible aether velocities in each spin-1/2 fermions with non-zero/zero rest mass spacetime point are equally probable). Inspired (electrons, protons, quarks etc.) and which can by these ideas of Dirac, Sinha, Sivaram and be described as either a 4-component spinor Sudarshan published in 1975 a series of papers (like in the case of fermions with non-zero rest in which they have proposed an aether modeled mass) or as a pair of 2-component Weyl spinors as superfluid composed of fermion-antifermion (like in the case of charged fermions with zero pairs, describable by a macroscopic wave rest mass called “Weyl fermions”). function [22,23,24]. These authors have concluded that the superfluid vacuum/aether Because both Hf and Zf are defined by SUSYA (SV) should be modeled as relativistic matter to be Majorana fermions, this SUSYA-proposed (ultra-light fermions/bosons moving at SFF can be described as a dependent 4- ultrarelativistic or even relativistic speeds) by component Majorana spinor or a single 2- putting it into the stress–energy tensor of the component Weyl-like (/pseudo-Weyl) spinor. Einstein’s field equations (EFE): however, as Being irreducible representations of the proper subsequent authors have noted, this approach Lorentz group, Weyl fermions can actually be didn’t offer a description of relativistic gravity as a used as building blocks of any kind of fermionic small fluctuation of SV. Actually, this approach field [9]. has a very importance nuance/duality (which also has relevance in our SUSYA-proposed Zf/Hf- Furthermore, this NMFs-based SV (NMF-SV) based SV): (1) an observer residing inside such behaves like an almost perfect (fermionic) a SV (and being capable of creating or ultrarelativistic gas (modeled as a fermionic measuring its small fluctuations with low condensate composed from Hfs and Zfs, momenta, below its excitation threshold) would possibly organized in Hf-Hf / Zf-Zf / Hf-Zf pairs observe those small fluctuations as relativistic analogously to Cooper pairs from the electron objects (like Zfs and Hfs are): in this case, SV condensates) which expands progressively behaves like an ideal fluid and therefore, the producing an accelerated cosmic inflation: other MM-type experiments would observe no drag authors have also considered Big-Bounce-like force from such a minimally-excited SV fermionic cosmologies (in which a global (explainable by those low-interacting Zfs and fermionic field can behave as an accelerated- Hfs) thus would lead to “null” results (which inflation field in the early universe, giving then cannot however exclude the existence of such a place to a matter-dominated period characterized minimally-excited SV); (2) an observer residing by cosmic decelerated inflation) [25]. inside such a SV (and being capable of creating or measuring its large fluctuations with large momenta, above its excitation threshold) would Not only that Hf is (stated to be) the mass- conjugate of the Higgs boson (Hb) and Zf is 32

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

(stated to be) the mass-conjugate of the Z boson hypothetical graviton] and “bubbles” [identified (Zb) (as proposed by SUSYA), but SUSYA also with black holes in which many types of EPs can proposes a profound connection between this remain “trapped” at least temporarily]) like any NMF-based superfluid vacuum/aether (NMF-SV) liquid/fluid (because it is actually a superfluid and both the Higgs field (HF) (a very weak but fermionic condensate) but may also contain subtle global coupling between NMF-SV and HF) streams of NMFs partially shielded by any and the electroweak Z-subfield (ZF) (a very weak material object (thus producing the gravitational but subtle local coupling between NMF-SV and effect described by FGT): in other words, SUSYA ZF), with the possibilities that: (1) Hb may also actually states that FGT and EGR are actually produce one or more undetectable Hfs in its two “faces” of the same “coin”, to different ways various types of decays; (2) Zb may also produce to describe the same NMF-SV/aether. More one or more undetectable Zfs in its various types ambitiously, SUSYA states that entropic gravity of decays; theory (EGT) (including Erik Verlinde’s version [26]) may be actually considered a third Pauli’s exclusion principle (prohibiting fermions alternative variant in which the same NMF-SV from occupying the same quantum state and phenomenology can be described without which principle apply to all fermions) may be also fundamentally contradicting or replacing EGR extended on Hfs and Zfs and, combined with the and FGT, but being merely the 3rd face of this principle of the minimum distance same “coin”. 21− r e Gk/ c 10 l (previously min ( e Pl ) Because Hf is defined as a scalar neutral proposed by eZEH as the esential condition for massless fermion (NMF) and the Zf is defined as any VPAP to possess a rest mass describable by a vectorial NMF, this fermionic a real number), may both explain why and how SV/condensate/aether is thus defined by SUSYA these Hfs/Zfs massless fermions create the as a “bilaminary” mix between two superposed appearance of a 3D/4D empty space possessing scalar (Hf-based) and vectorial (Zf-based) a non-zero volume. SUSYA thus predicts that the fermionic fields: fermionic scalar fields are not a so-called “4D spacetime” used by Einstein’s novelty per se [27]; the scalar Hf-based fermionic General relativity (EGR) is not an abstract one, subfield (of this SUSYA-proposed aether) may but is actually a 4D fermionic be a candidate for a form of scalar dark matter condensate/hyperfluid (composed from Hfs and (SDM) which is however quite distinct from the Zfs) which may distort/bend/deform when excited currently hypothesized forms of SDM composed by other sources of energy (like other physical from hypothetical (still unknown) EPs with rest fields and EPs): gravitational waves (GWs) are masses between a few MeV’s and a few GeV’s redefined as collective distortions of the Hfs/Zfs [28]. trajectories composing this superfluid fermionic vacuum/condensate. This SUSYA-proposed NMF-based superfluid vacuum (NMF-SV) may explain many apparent Furthermore, this SUSYA-proposed NMF-based paradoxes of quantum mechanics/world (listed superfluid vacuum/aether (NMF-SV) rebrings into below): attention the Fatio/Le Sage theory of gravitation (FTG) (which never gained widespread (1) NMF-SV may explain Heisenberg’s acceptance until present) in which streams of Uncertainty principle (HUP) and the wave- NMFs impact all material objects from all particle duality (WPD) (the “wavicle”-like directions: in this old theory of gravitation (firstly character of any non-NMF EP) by the fact that proposed in 1690 by Fatio and re-brought into any EP (or any EP-based composite physical attention in 1748 by Le Sage), any two material object) produces ripples in this NMF-SV which bodies partially shield each other from these may be identified with the so-called “matter impinging NMFs, resulting in a net imbalance in waves” (firstly proposed by de Broglie). the pressure exerted by the impact of NMFs on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. (2) because NMFs are stated by SUSYA to can Furthermore, SUSYA argues that FTG may be actually permeate any composite physical object actually compatible with EGR, in the sense that (CPO), NMFs may also explain the quantum EGR may be a 4D geometrical variant of FGT, tunnelling effect (QTE) by a 2-steps “perforation” because this NMF-SV may actually mechanism in which: (i) in a 1st step, a group of “bend”/deform (and support “ripples” [identified NMFs may temporarily cover any tunnelling (non- with gravitational waves quantized by the NMF-)EP and facilitate its transition through any 33

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

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

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

(corresponding to a theoretical relativistic mass m= E/ c2 10− 69 kg which is almost Hf// Zf Hf Zf of the hypothetical graviton of infinitesimal and may be reasonably 2− 112 : based on these mgr = Emin(gr ) / c 10 kg approximated to m 0 kg (as predicted Hf/ Zf attributes of the hypothetical graviton and by the conjugated solutions of the main equation redefining m= m  m 10−111 kg(  0 kg) , proposed by eZEH). NMF ( Hf/ Zf ) gr Mm/ If the total mass of the ordinary matter (om) we have de& dm NMF 9 1084NMFs / m 3 (including ration/bosonic matter and estimated at VObU 53 55 Mom 10 kg ) represents only about 5% which is equivalent to about 10 NMFs per (=1/20) of the total mass of the observable each volume of a hydrogen atom (H) which is a universe (ObU) (with total mass estimated as really large number of NMFs (defining a huge spatial/aetherial “volumic resolution” of a 54 MObU 20  Mom  2  10 kg ) and the hydrogen atom). dark energy (de) plus dark matter(dm) both A redefinition of the speed of light in vacuum represent 95% of ObU (thus having a mass of (as based on Zf and Hf) and an explanation 54 on the apparently paradoxal behavior of the Mde& dm0.95  M ObU  1.9  10 kg ) superfluid vacuum/aether. Zfs and Hf (with then: if Mde& dm is attributed to this predicted zero rest mass or a finite and non-infinitesimal Hf/Zf-based aether only, the minimum number of minimum rest mass mmin  0 kg allowed in our Hfs/Zfs per unit of volume in ObU (with total universe) can actually be assigned a finite 80 3 volume VmObU 3.6 10 ) would be maximum allowed speed vmax (for any EP to Mm/ travel in our universe): the photon is redefined by de& dm NMF 2 1042NMFs / m 3 (with SUSYA as an quantized oscillation of this Zf/Hf- VObU based fermionic SV (composed from Zfs and Hfs “NMFs” being the abbreviation for “neutral moving at maximum speed ), thus the massless fermions” like Hfs and Zfs are and photon can only travel in this fermionic SV at −69 speeds cv max (so that the speed of a photon mNMF = mHf/ Zf 10 kg ): this minimum in vacuum is inversely redefined as cv ). 13 max density is equivalent to about 10 NMFs per Because the usually photon reaches speeds each volume of a hydrogen atom (H) (with in the “perfect SV the vacuum, this −30 3 volume VmH 10 ) which is a relatively “sea” of Zfs and Hfs firmly opposes to any further huge number of NMFs (defining a kind of acceleration of the photon, suddenly behaving spatial/aetherial “volumic resolution” of a like a very rigid/stiff solid-like elastic medium with hydrogen atom). a specific non-zero degree of elasticity (with huge energetic volumic density possibly However, if the Planck-like gravitonic constant approaching Planck density and a very large 3 hhgr ( ) (attributed to the hypothetical characteristic impedance of cG/ 35 graviton) is estimated as 4 10kg / s ) in which the photon propagates −43 −1 as a transverse wave (like also the gravitational h= h /  10 h (with  137 gr ( G 0 ) [transverse] waves and analogously to a sonic being the value at rest of the electromagnetic “boom”): that is how SUSYA explains why light −45 behaves like a transverse wave (which coupling constant and G 1.75 10 being commonly occur in elastic solids) in many types the value at rest of the electromagnetic coupling of specific experiments (like the Thomas Young's constant) then we may hypothesize an double-slit experiment showing the diffraction of alternative gravitonic minimum energy-quantum light); however, when any physical object (PO) of our ObU as −76 travels in this Zf/Hf-based SV at low speeds Emin(gr)  hgr c/ DObU 10 eV 35

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

vv , SV opposes just a minimum 3  ( max ) 3 2 c hc EHE=2 =  = (practically zero!) resistance to that movement, 00min  c/ H0  DObU because Zfs and Hfs are very weakly interacting −33 with any form of matter composing a PO.  10 eV . Furthermore, the solid-like resistance generated by the Zf/Hf-based SV at large/ultrarelativistic The eZEH-predicted Zfs and Hfs have also some speeds v (a resistance highly opposing to the similarities to the so-called “microleptons” (MLs) ultrarelativistic movement of any physical object proposed by the Russian physicist Anatolij [PO] with non-zero rest mass) may also explain Fedorovich Ohatrin which defined them as the Lorentz length compression factor superlight fermions with rest masses estimated 2 −−44 39  =−1/ 1(vc / ) (applied as ll'/=  when to be in the interval 10 ,10 kg (and the length of that PO is parallel to its direction of stated to surround and fill/permeate “all the movement) and the phenomenon of relativistic composite physical objects [CPOs] of the material world”, with “no physical barriers”). mass dilation mm' = (explained by a These MLs are also stated to possess inherent progressively larger number of Zfs and Hfs that torsion, axial and spin fields and to globally form may “precipitate” /deposit on and thus a very weak fermionic field called “microleptonic progressively increase the mass of any PO gas” (MLG) which has a specific contribution to moving at ultrarelativistic speeds v ). In other the inertial/rest mass of any CPO (a contribution words, SUSYA states that no other EP can also depending on the density and temperature of this MLG) [35]. surpass the speed of Hfs and Zfs (vcmax  ) simply because there is no EP lighter than Hfs Important prediction. SUSYA also predicts that and Zfs (composing SV): vcmax ( ) is explained it is very possible for all the stars to produce (by to be the same in all possible inertial reference- hydrogen fusion to helium) large quantities of frames simply because SV is actually composed such neutral massless Majorana Higgs-fermions from these neutral massless fermions (Hfs and (Hfs) and Z-fermions (Zfs) which may Zfs) which all travel at approximately the same progressively add volume to the current aether (identified with our apparently 3D empty space) speed in a Brownian manner, in all and thus to produce an accelerated global possible conceivable directions of space, in all expansion of our universe. possible conceivable reference-frames. 1.3.5 The proposed mass-conjugation The eZEH-predicted Zfs and Hfs have also some between the three known types of similarities to the so-called “etheron” proposed in neutrinos and the photon, gluon and an article from 1982 by the Romanian physicist the hypothetical graviton Ioan-Iovitz Popescu which defined it as an elementary particle with “exceedingly small [rest] Focusing on all three types of neutrinos, mass, traveling chaotically at speed of light” and photon, gluon and hypothetical graviton. In a 3 2− 69 second step, eZEH estimates the lower bounds estimated its rest mass as m00=2 H/ c 10 kg of g for all known three neutrinos, as deducted (with H 70( km / s) / Mpc being the Hubble 0 from the currently estimated upper bounds of the constant) and rest energy non-zero rest energies of all three known types 3 −33 of neutrino: the electron neutrino (en) with E00=2 H( 10 eV ) [20]: note that E0 is E1 eV [36], the muon neutrino (mn) with very close to the previous estimation of the Hf/Zf en E 0.17 MeV [37] and the tau neutrino (tn) relativistic energy E= E10−33 eV , mn Hf/ Zf min ( ) 53 with Etn 18.2 MeV [38,39]: g() en  10 u , because −26 has a magnitude c/ H0 ( 10 m) 47 45 g() mn 6 10 u and g() tn 6 10 u , 27 close to DmObU 10 , so that with g() en being assigned a very large Gvar

36

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

on the same eZEH), SUSYA also predicts that, upper bound 28 , so Gen (=g(en) r min ) 2  10 G because hgr is the MC of the en, a sufficiently high-energy hgr may produce (or “decay to”) an that GGGvar , en  and thus strengthening the en-pair: the same for ph (which may produce a previously introduced (sub-)hypothesis mn-pair) and for gl (which may produce a tn- 22 pair). SUSYA also predicts the multiple possibility gemq at scales close to Planck scale. that: (1) en to decay to a (hgr, Hf/Zf) pair, (2) mn Remark. It is easy to observe that eZEH to decay to a (ph, Hf/Zf) pair, (3) tn to decay to a generally predicts progressively larger “real” big (gl, Hf/Zf) pair. G values for progressively smaller m : an Like all EMFs (including the hypothetical Hf and additional explanation for this correlation shall be Zf) en, mn and tn are also stated by SUSYA to offered later in this paper. We must also remind not possess intrinsic electric or magnetic that a specific virtual EP (VEP) may have a moments, but only toroidal moments (produced variable mass lower or equal to the mass m of by their helicity) which allows only minimal the real “version” of the same EP (mmVEP  ) interactions with electromagnetic fields (thus and that is why the “virtual” big G values making them plausible candidates for cold dark assigned to the gravitational field acting between matter). Also, like all EMFs, en, mn and tn are a virtual particle and its antiparticle (part of the also stated by SUSYA to violate the conservation same VPAP) may be even larger than the of lepton number and even to violate the previously calculated ones. difference between the baryon number (B) and the lepton number (L) (the so-called “B - L”/ "bee eZEH cannot directly estimate the values of minus ell"): thus, SUSYA predicts that, even if it hasn’t been observed yet in nature (nor in g() NEP for the massless photon (ph) g() ph various experiments), neutrinoless double beta decay (NDBD) is possible, because NDBD can and the gluon (gl) g() gl due to the division-by- be viewed as two ordinary beta decays whose zero error/paradox. However, eZEH additionally resultant antineutrinos immediately annihilate with each other (an annihilation that is only states that  and  may have very g() ph g() gl possible if neutrinos are their own antiparticles). large values coinciding with  ,  and g() en g() mn In this new light of SUSYA, the hypothetical  . More specifically, eZEH speculates that aether components Hf and Zf may be actually g() tn considered a “0th” (4th) (still undetected)  and that there also exists a generation of (Majorana) neutrinos. g()() ph g gl massless graviton (gr) defined by In a checkpoint conclusion, by predicting en,    so that: mn and tn to be all EMFs (additionally to the g()()() gr g ph( g gl ) SUSYA-predicted hypothetical aether components Hf and Zf which are also defined as = , = and g()() gr g en g()() ph g mn EMFs), SUSYA is in agreement with the currently most-favored explanation of the smallness of g()() gl= g tn . In other words, SUSYA neutrino mass, the seesaw mechanism (SMEC) actually predicts these three pairs of mass- (in which the neutrino is “naturally” a Majorana fermion). conjugates (MCs): (gr, en), (ph, mn) and (gl-tn).

Furthermore and accordingly to eZEH, because SMEC may naturally explain why the observed the hypothetical gr (hgr), ph and gl are their own neutrino rest-masses are so small. There are antiparticles (as generally considered in the Standard Model), this eZEH-based SUSYA several types of hypothetical SMECs (index as predicts that en, mn and tn (defined as the MCs type 1, 2 etc), each proposed as a possible extension of the Standard Model (SM). Type-1 of hgr, ph and gl respectively) are also their own SMEC (SMEC-1) is the simplest variant of SMEC antiparticles, thus they are predicted to be and assumes two or more additional right- actually elementary Majorana fermions (EMFs) (aka Majorana neutrinos, because Majorana handed neutrino fields inert under the fermions are electromagnetically neutral by electroweak interaction (the so-called “sterile definition, otherwise they couldn’t be their own neutrinos”), and the existence of a very large mass scale identifiable with the postulated scale antiparticles). More ambitiously (and also based 37

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

of grand unification (GU). More specifically, is comparable to the much smaller electroweak SMEC-1 produces both a light neutrino and a energy-scale), which implies that very heavy one (yet to be observed) for each of BMB2+4 2 2 (because 4MB22 ): that the three known neutrino flavors. SMEC-1 is actually based on a simple mathematical BB+ 2 is why xB and the smaller principle following property of the symmetric 2×2 + 2 mass matrix for the neutrinos of the form  0 M eigenvalue is approximated from the A =  (with B being the Majorana MB 2  previously mentioned equality x x = − M mass component of the neutrinos and M being ( +− ) the Dirac mass component of the neutrinos) with −−MM22 a characteristic polynomial (CP) A' (a to x−    0 [7] [40,41,42]. xB+ polynomial which is invariant under matrix similarity and has the eigenvalues of A as That is how SMEC-1 explains why the neutrino roots), with eigenvector mass matrix masses (corresponding to the x solution) are 1 0 0 M x− M −       so small (~1eV), which is in relative agreement A' = x  I2 − A = x   −   =   01  M B  −− M x B  with the most recent experiments that estimate the rest energy-masses of the three known 10 generations of neutrinos: this (relative) (with I =  being the 2x2 identity matrix 2 01 agreement is sometimes regarded as supportive  evidence for the framework of GU theories. with 1-values on the main diagonal and 0-values on the secondary diagonal): the determinant A' BBM+224 The conjugated solutions x = (defining the CP) can be easily estimated as  2  xM− 2 A' = = x( x − B) −( − M ) and the (proposed by SMEC-1) have striking similarity −−M x B with the solutions (3) of the main equation (2) of 2 4 2 characteristic/determinantal (quadratic) equation c− cge q 22 eZEH m = (presented in (CE) . Noting the  A'0=x− xB − M = 0 g coefficient of this CE with a =1, bB=− and the first sections of this paper); to exactly 2 resemble x solutions, the m solutions cM=− , the x solutions of CE are actually   the eigenvalues of mass matrix and can be (proposed by eZEH) can be rewritten as:

2 −b  b − 4 ac 24 2 easily determined as x = , 24cc2eq 2a −2 gg 22 g BBM+4 m = (5) which is equivalent to x = , 2 2 According to this similarity (invoked by SUSYA), with product x x = − M 2 : as one may +− 22 (2c /g )(= 2 rc / G) corresponds to B , easily note from these x solutions, if one of the 2 − 2/q corresponds to 4M 2 , thus eigenvalues ( x+ ) goes up, the other ( x− ) goes ( eg) down (and vice versa) and that is why SMEC −2qk2 qq − 2 − 2 was coined as "seesaw" mechanism. In applying e== e e corresponds SMEC-1 to neutrinos, the Majorana mass 4gg 2 2 G component B (which is defined as comparable to  the GU energy-scale and violating lepton to M ). The 2x2 symmetrical mass matrix with number) is taken to be much larger (>>) than solutions as eigenvalues would be: Dirac mass component M of the neutrinos (which 38

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

and may be written as a variable (var) imaginary  q −2ke mass component m q=− q/ 2 2 k / G 0 var(i ) ( ) ( ) ( e ) 2 G  (6) Z = (which takes only imaginary values if both ke q−2k 2 rc2 e and remain positive reals at any 2 GG length/energy scale ): for example,

The equation (2) of eZEH may be thus redefined −9 mvar(i ) ( e) 1.3 i 10 kg (an imaginary as the characteristic equation (derived from the characteristic polynomial by equaling it to zero) undetectable mass which may be approximated of this Z mass matrix. with 0kg ); thus SUSYA extends this simple 2x2 B-M symmetrical mass matrix A (applied by 2 The a element 2/rc G (of the previous SMEC-1 to neutrinos only) to all known/unknown 2,2 EPs (including neutrinos) as a more general mass matrix Z ) is actually a Majorana mass mass matrix Z , so that the Majorana mass component B and may be written as a variable component B of any EP is predicted (by SUSYA) (var) real mass component to be generally much larger than the Dirac mass component M of that same EP. m( r) = 2/ rc2 G (which takes only real- var However, because (which is directly- number values for rr min ) : mrvar ( ) is a proportional to the electromagnetic coupling constant  (R) increasing with decreasing - simple linear function of rr( min ) , which takes scale) and are both stated by SUSYA to vary the value of 2mPl for distance rl= Pl (with with the length -scale (as kR and GR), −8 e ( ) ( ) mPl = c/ G 2.18 10 kg being the Planck mqvar(i ) ( ) can be generalized as 3 −35 mass and lGPl = /c 1.62 10 m being the Planck length) and progressively larger mvar(i ) ( q, r) =−( q / 2) 2 ke ( r) / G( r) . This values (in a linear manner) for larger values. r generalized mass-function has imaginary- However, G is also stated by SUSYA to vary number values, but may have real-number with the length (thus energy) scale r (as values only if the variable gravitational constant previously calculated from the various values of scalar Gr( ) would invert its sign and become g for various pairs of mass-conjugates and negative (so that the −2/ke ( r) G( r) ratio r , as Gr=  ) and that is why min min(x)g (x) min would become positive): in this case, the gravitational field (GF) may become very strongly mrvar ( ) can be generalized as repulsive for infinitesimal length scales rr min 2 mvar ( r) = 2/ rc G( r) : exponentially larger and that may explain why our universe doesn’t allow r scales smaller than r (because a Gr( ) values with decreasing length scale (as min predicted by SUSYA) would allow elementary very strongly repulsive GF under would simply prevent any collapse to scales smaller rest masses much lower than mPl for -scales than ). Based on this predicted repulsive GF −1 comparable to rl10 as all known min ( Pl ) (for scales ), SUSYA thus predicts that EPs actually have. our universe doesn’t actually allow true gravitational singularities, but only gravitational The double element aa1,2(= 2,1) quasi-singularities: that is how SUSYA tries to solve the singularity paradox of Einstein’s (q/ 2) − 2( ke / G) (of the same previous mass General Relativity (EGR). matrix ) is actually a Dirac mass component M 39

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

A negative-valued Gr( ) (for rr ) would min 1.3.6 The proposed mass-conjugation also imply a negative (real-numbered) Majorana between the electron and the W boson; mass component m r= 2/ rc2 G r for two proposed bosonic mass-conjugates var ( ) ( ) for the muon and the tauon : hypothetical EPs with negative rest Focusing on the electron-W boson mass-energy are not a novelty per se in physics, conjugated pair, but also on the muon and as they were also considered much earlier by tauon which are predicted to have ultra-heavy other physicists: in 1928, Paul Dirac's theory of charged bosonic mass-conjugates. In a third EPs (part of the current Standard Model [SM]) step, eZEH additionally states that the W boson firstly included negative solutions [43]; and the electron may also form a conjugate quantum electrodynamics (QED) (the “core” of boson-fermion pair with rest masses SM) also works with the concept of negative m= c2 − c 4 −  q 2 /  mass-energy. ee( g(/)(/) W e e W e) g (W/e)

The previously introduced Z mass matrix may and be now redefined as: 2 4 2 m= c + c −  qe /  . W ( g(/)(/) W e e W e) g (W/e) 42 0,mvar(i ) ( q r) The common term cq− of Z( q, r) =  (6’) g()() W−− e e W e e m( q, r) mvar ( r) var(i ) both rest masses ( me and mW ) disappears 2 when summing me += m2/ c  , from W g(W/e) The equation (2) of eZEH may be thus re- which their common/shared g(W/e) ratio can redefined as the characteristic equation (derived from the characteristic polynomial) of this Z be reversely estimated as mass matrix.  =2c2 /( m + m)  1.25  10 42 u , g(W/e) e W SUSYA additionally predicts that the length 42 which is relatively close to  10 u and domain may be “populated” by “exotic” g() Zb ( ) EPs with negative and/or imaginary rest mass- 41 gb(H ) (8 10 u) , thus we have an energies (which may be regarded as the “shadows” of the known positive-mass EPs) estimated 16 . GW/ e(= g (W/e) r min )  G Zb  G Hb 2  10 G which are coined as “shadow”-EPs (shEPs) in this paper: furthermore, SUSYA also predicts The other e(W/e) ratio can be also reversely that the core of any black hole (BH) may also be populated by such shEPs which may conserve estimated from both mW (or me ) and g(W/e) all the physical information (stored on all “normal”/”standard” EPs) absorbed by any BH as  6.4 1024F − 1 . (thus solving the BH information paradox) and e(W/e) may be regarded as an “empty”/”shadowy” BH- core. In the case of the muon (m) and tauon (t) (which In a checkpoint conclusion, both concepts of are currently considered two distinct excited imaginary mass-energy and negative mass- states of the electron) eZEH predicts that they energy are very important in this eZEH-based may be conjugated with two predicted hypothetical bosons (which are analogously SUSYA which proposes Z q, r -based SMEC ( ) considered two distinct excited (ultra-heavy) (Z-SMEC) as a universal seesaw mechanism states of the W boson) called here the “W- (organizing all EPs in specific pairs of mass- muonic boson” (Wmb) and the “W-tauonic conjugates, analogously/similarly to the neutrinos boson” (Wtb) respectively, which Wmb and Wtb as standardly modeled by SMEC-1) applicable are probably much heavier than the W boson not only to neutrinos, but to all the EPs of the and the Higgs boson: Wmb and Wtb can be also Standard Model (SM) of particle physics and far regarded as ultra-heavy charged Higgs bosons beyond SM. with their rest energies defining the energy scale 40

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

at which the electroweak field (EWF) may be fractional EMC as quarks (an essential eZEH- unified with the Higgs field. imposed condition for being “mass-conjugates” of those known quarks), so that and given Furthermore, Wtb is predicted by SUSYA to be 2 : the heaviest possible EP (allowed in our g(Hb) (= 2/cm Hb ) universe) that may decay to many other lighter EPs (including decaying into leptoquarks, as (1a) A so-called 1st generation LQ named “up- explained later): also, the muon and the tauon leptoquark” (uLQ) with rest mass may be produced not only by the decay of their 2 heavier mass-conjugates (MCs) Wmb and Wtb, 2c mmuLQ ( Hb ) , g(uLQ) = but also by the decay of leptoquarks (as also mmuq + uLQ explained later in this paper). In a checkpoint conclusion, the Wtb-tauon pair of MCs is +2  g(Hb) and fractional EMC 3 e (the mass- retrodicted by SUSYA to be actually the 1st step ( ) (/level/type) of symmetry breaking (SB) in our conjugate of the up quark sharing the same EMC +2 universe, which may have had occurred 3 e ) may decay (by conserving its EMC, immediately after Big Bang (BB) or even right in however) into an up quark (with the same EMC the BB moment: all the other lighter EPs (from +2 e ) and an electron neutrino/antineutrino OR the leptoquarks domain down to the lowest- 3 −1 energy domain dominated by the massless may decay into a down quark (with emc 3 e ) Majorana neutrinos Hf and Zf predicted to and a positron (with EMC +e ); compose a so-called superfluid aether) are thus redefined by SUSYA to be actually just the final (1b) A so-called 1st generation LQ named “down- products of this 1st step of SB. leptoquark” (dLQ) with rest mass 2c2 1.3.7 The proposed mass-conjugation , mdLQ( muLQ m Hb ) g(dLQ) = between the three known generations of mmdq+ dLQ quarks and three predicted generations of fractional-charge bosons (known as and fractional EMC −1 (the mass- ( g(Hb) ) 3 e “leptoquarks”) conjugate of the down quark sharing the same −1 Focusing on a proposed mass conjugation EMC 3 e ) may decay into a down quark (with between the three known generations of −1 the same EMC 3 e ) and an electron quarks and three predicted generations of neutrino(/antineutrino) OR may decay into an up fractional-charge bosons (leptoquarks). eZEH quark (with EMC +2 ) and an electron (with also predicts that the six known quarks may have 3 e as mass-conjugates a set of six fractional- EMC −e ); (electromagnetic)charge bosons known as leptoquarks (LQs) (hypothetical EPs that would (2a) A so-called 2nd generation LQ named carry information between each generation of “charm-leptoquark” (cLQ) with rest mass quarks and a correspondent generation of 2c2 leptons, thus allowing quarks and leptons to mmcLQ ( Hb ) , g(cLQ) = interact). LQs were first predicted by various mmcq + cLQ extensions of the Standard Model, such as and fractional EMC (the mass- technicolor theories and Grand unified theories ( g(Hb) ) (GUTs) based on Pati–Salam model, SU(5) or conjugate of the charm quark sharing the same E6, etc. EMC ) may decay (by conserving its EMC, LQs were predicted to be considerably unstable however) into a charm quark (with the same and heavy EPs (nearly as heavy as an atom of EMC ) and a muon neutrino(/antineutrino) lead) that may only be produced in LHC at very OR may decay into a strange quark (with emc high energies of collisions: the quantum numbers ) and an antimuon (with emc ); (like spin, fractional electromagnetic charge [EMC] and weak isospin) vary among theories. nd However, eZEH specifically predicts that LQs (2b) A so-called 2 generation LQ named (the mass-conjugates of quarks) also organize in “strange-leptoquark” (sLQ) with rest mass three generations AND can only have the same 41

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

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

(with EMC +e ); 2. A SYNTHESIS OF SUSYA [3]

(3b) A so-called 3rd generation LQ named “bottom-leptoquark” (bLQ) with rest mass All the proposed pairs of EP-conjugates (as 2 stated by the eZEH-based SUSYA) are also mm( ) , 2c illustrated in the next tables: as it can be seen bLQ Hb g(bLQ) = mmbq+ bLQ from these tables, eZEH transforms the already and fractional EMC (the mass-conjugate of “classical” 2D table of EPs (from the Standard model of particle physics) in a 3D structure/table the bottom quark sharing the same EMC ) in which EPs are grouped not only in boson and may decay into a bottom quark (with the same fermion families/subfamilies, BUT they are also EMC ) and a tauon neutrino(/antineutrino) grouped and inter-related by an “underneath” OR may decay into a top quark (with EMC ) relation of boson-fermion mass-conjugation, all based on the same simple semi-empirical and a tauon (with EMC ); quadratic equation proposed by eZEH as derivable from this proposed universal seesaw The three generations of LQs could actually explain the reason for the three generations of mechanism based on the Z( q, r) mass matrix matter (three generations of quarks plus three and applicable to all known and unknown EPs. generations of leptons), why the same number of quarks and leptons exist and many other similarities between the quark and the lepton

42

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

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

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

g()() gr= g en hypothetical graviton electron neutrino (en)  =? (gr) (Majorana neutrino) (1.1 1053u) e(gr) (spin-2 neutral 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)  =? (spin-1 neutral (Majorana neutrino) (5.6 1045u) e(gl) boson, with color =? 20 ke(gl) charge only) GGgl/ tn 1.2 10 “Z-fermion” (Zf) (predicted neutral =1042u  =? Z boson (Zb) massless ½-spin g()() Zb( g Zf ) e(Zb) (spin-1 neutral Majorana fermion/ ke(Zb) =? boson) neutrino) (proposed as GG2.1 1016 vector constituent of a Zb/ Zf fermionic superfluid aether (FSA) “Higgs-fermion” (Hf) Higgs boson (Hb) (predicted neutral = 8  1041u  =? (spin-0/scalar massless ½-spin g()() Hb( g Hf ) e(Hb) neutral boson) Majorana GG1.7 1016 k =? fermion/neutrino) Hb/ Hf e(Hb) (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)

“W-muonic” boson =? =? (Wmb) muon (m) g(Wmb)( g ( Hb ) ) e(Wmb)( e(W/e) ) (very heavy spin-1 GG=? charged boson) Wmb ( Hb ) kke(Wmb)=?( e ( Hb ) ) “W-tauonic” boson =? =? (Wtb) tauon (t) g(Wtb)( g ( Hb ) ) e(Wtb)( e(W/e) ) (ultra-heavy spin-1 43

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

charged boson) GG=? Wtb ( Hb ) kke(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 ) )

44

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

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)

In a checkpoint conclusion, SUSYA essentially double of the 17 known types of EPs); SUSYA proposes a universal seesaw mechanism explains the non-zero rest masses of 28 known (abbreviated as Z-SMEC and previously and hypothetical EPs (14 pairs of eZEH- expressed by the Z( q, r) mass matrix) predicted mass-conjugates, not counting their antiparticles which almost doubles this number: applicable to all known/unknown EPs. Z-SMEC (1)Zb & Zf, (2)Hb & Zf, (3)gr & en, (4)ph & mn, actually replaces the “superpartner” notion (of (5)gl & tn, (6)Wb & electron, (7)Wmb & muon, SUSY) with the concept of (charge-based) (8)Wtb & tauon, (9)uq & uLQ, (10)dq & dLQ, “mass-conjugate” or simply “conjugate” of a (11)cq & cLQ, (12)sq & sLQ, (13)tq & tLQ and known EP, which conjugate may be actually an (14)bq & bLQ) by only 14 discrete  ratios already known EP: in this way SUSYA more- g “economically” predicts only 28 known plus (associated with their bijectively-correspondent hypothetical EPs in contrast with SUSY which predicts at least 34 distinct types of EPs (the 45

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

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

46

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

27 Because both G and ke are stated to vary with values): GGgr/ en (2.1 10 ) , the length scale rr thus to take the ( min ) 22 , 20 , GGph/ mn (1.2 10 ) GGgl/ tn (1.2 10 ) forms Gr( ) and kre ( ) respectively, the 16 16 GGZb/ Zf 2.1 10 , GGHb/ Hf 1.7 10 and variable  and  ratios can be also rewritten g e 16 GGW/e 2.6 10 (see next figure). A function as  (r) and  (r) respectively: g(var) e(var) similar to was also proposed in a past SUSYA thus predicts a global/universal electro- gravitational seesaw mechanism (EGSM) in article of the author [44] and transforms the which, when the electromagnetic field (EMF) classical Planck mass mPl = c/ G in a Planck increases in strength (at macroscopic scales) the gravitational field (GF) decreases in strength (at mass series m( r) = c/ G( r) which the same macroscopic scales) AND when EMF Pl(var) var decreases in strength at microscopic scales may offer a very interesting new glimpse in the domain of quantum/micro black holes (as (down to rmin scales comparable to the Planck- explained next). length scale), the GF increases in strength at the same microcosmic Planck-like scale; the equation (2) of eZEH can be also rewritten as 80 2 2 2 , with solutions x ge(r) x−(20 c) x +( r) q = p_var(10 m) p_gr_en c2− c 4( r) ( r) q 2 60 ge p_ph_mn mx(==) . g (r) p_gl_tn 40 p_Zb_Zf The growth pattern of (with a decreasing p_Hb_Hf length scale r ) probably keeps values p_W_e 20 −11 3 − 1 − 2 close to G(6.67 10 m kg s ) on both macroscopic and microscopic scales but 0 0 − 10 − 20 − 30 “suddenly” increases exponentially values x when becomes comparable with Fig. 1. The common graph of the ratios −1 rl10 as also shown in a previous x min ( Pl ) x Gmvar (10 ) pmvar (10) = log , article [3]. A simple function which may model 10 G  this special growth pattern of would be G G 44 gr/ en ph/ mn (with a 5.7 10 being the inverse of the pgr/ en = log10 , pph/ mn = log10 , G G G gravitational coupling constant   G 2 Ggl/ tn , Zb/ Zf Gme −45 pgl/ tn = log10 pZb/ Zf = log10   = 1.8  10 ): G G G c GWe/ and pWe/ = log10 , with integer rmin /r G Gvar ( r) = G aG (7) exponential x−0, 36 and (-36) value being

The graph of this simple Grvar ( ) function rmin chosen because log10 − 36 (illustrated in base-10 logarithmic units) is 1m presented together with the previously estimated big G values (or the lower bounds of these big G

47

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

27 macrocosmic scales compared to scales The huge GGPl (2.1 10 ) has many comparable to Planck scales (r ) . important implications indicating that micro(/ min quantum) black holes (MBHs) usually assigned a size comparable to Planck length SUSYA also predicts the existence of a primordial ultra-heavy EP (and the heaviest of all 3 −35 lGPl = /c (1.62 10 m) and a EPs) called “W-tauonic boson” (Wtb) which may ( ) had been the main component of pBBQS and mass equal to the Planck mass m= c/ G “parent” of all the other lighter EPs, including the Pl main generator of the primordial massless −8 2.18 10 kg (which is currently considered Majorana neutrinos (Hfs and Zfs) which still exist the approximate smallest mass of any MBH) may today and compose the hypothetical superfluid actually have much smaller masses of Hf/Zf-based aether proposed by SUSYA.

−22 5 2 mMBH = c/ GPl (  10 kg)(  10 GeV / c ) 4. FINAL CONCLUSIONS which relatively superposes to the mass-domain of the known EPs (with the heaviest known EP This eZEH-based SUSYA essentially resurrects namely the top-quark with rest mass the aether theory in the form of a Hf/Zf-based 2 superfluid aether mtq  174 GeV / c ): by emphasizing this and may also help solving the hierarchy problem, the infinite-density singularity 52 problem (of General relativity) and crystallizes much smaller mMBH 10 GeV / c , SUSYA ( ) new directions in theoretical physics beyond the strongly suggests that all EPs may be actually Standard model, including the prediction of a non-extreme stable (quantum) MBHs defined as granular/quantum structure of spacetime near non-point-like gravitational quasi-singularities the Planck scale and the existence of a pre-Big (with very small but non-zero and non- Bang quasi-singularity (with large but finite infinitesimal 3D/4D volumes) generated by a very density), with all EPs being redefined as strong gravitational field (VSGF) (measured by quantum micro black holes governed by a very 27 the scalar GG2.1 10 ) acting close to strong gravitational field acting around Planck Pl length scale. −1 rlmin (10 Pl ) scales. This possibility of EPs ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS being actually MBHs was also previously considered in a past article of the author [45]. If Many thanks to the American physicists Mr. they are all truly MBHs, then EPs should have Thomas J. Buckholtz1 and Mr. Gary Warren2: our non-zero radii relatively close to rmin which may recent online discussions were very inspiring and be an additional argument for choosing the motivating for me to write this paper which continues and clarifies many important aspects rmin /r function Gvar ( r)(= G aG ) which launched in my previously published article [3]. maintains a relatively constant value in the COMPETING INTERESTS macrocosmic and partially in the microcosmic domains of length scales and then grows very Author has declared that no competing interests 45 27 abruptly up to 10GGG   2.1  10 exist. ( Pl )( ) REFERENCES when getting close to rmin . 1. Haber Howie. Supersymmetry, Part I 27 The largeness of GGPl (2.1 10 ) may also (Theory). (PDF). Reviews, Tables and th Plots. Particle Data Group (PDG); 2014. indicate the existence of possible large/bulk 4 Available:https://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/r (/5th etc.) extra-dimensions of our universe in pp2014-rev-susy-1-theory.pdf which the hypothetical graviton may escape (immediately after being emitted by these MBH- equivalent EPs), explaining why gravity is 1. See his Research Gate page: measured as being much weaker at large www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Buckholtz 2. See his Research Gate page: www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Warren2 48

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

2. Langacker Paul. Meet a superpartner at Theoretical Physics. 1980;64(3):1103– the LHC. Physics. New York: American 1105. Physical Society. 3 (98). Bibcode: Bibcode: 1980PThPh..64.1103Y 2010PhyOJ...3...98L; 2010. DOI:10.1143/PTP.64.1103 DOI: 10.1103/Physics.3.98 Available:https://academic.oup.com/ptp/arti ISSN 1943-2879 cle/64/3/1103/1911881 OCLC 233971234 8. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi. On a plausible triple Available:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v3 electro-gravito-informational significance of /98 the fine structure constant. Physical 3. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi. On a possible Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: logarithmic connection between Einstein’s 2348-0130. 2017;15(3):1-19. constant and the fine-structure constant, in DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2017/34613 relation to a zero-energy hypothesis”, Available:www.sciencedomain.org/abstract Physical Science International Journal /20204. (PSIJ). ISSN: 2348-0130. 2020;24(5):22- 9. Palash B. Pal. Dirac, majorana and weyl 40. fermions. arXiv:1006.1718 [hep-ph]; 2010. DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2020/v24i530191 Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1718 Available:www.journalpsij.com/index.php/P 10. Howard E. Haber. Massless Majorana and SIJ/article/view/30191. See also the Weyl fermions cannot be distinguished; following addendum-like paper containing 2019. some important periodic updates on this Available:http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/web article: “Periodic updates of the article page/majnu.pdf and <

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

15. Einstein Albert. Ether and the Theory of antiparticle pairs. Foundations of Physics. Relativity. republished in Sidelights on Springer Nature. 1976;6(1):65–70. Relativity (Methuen, London1920); 1922. DOI: 10.1007/bf00708664 Available:en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and ISSN 0015-9018 _the_Theory_of_Relativity Available:https://link.springer.com/article/1 16. Dirac Paul AM. Is there an Aether? Letters 0.1007%2FBF00708664 to Nature. Nature. 1951;168(4282):906– 23. Sinha KP, Sivaram C, Sudarshan ECG. 907. The superfluid vacuum state, time-varying Bibcode: Natur. 1951168..906D cosmological constant, and nonsingular DOI: 10.1038/168906a0 cosmological models. Foundations of Available:www.nature.com/articles/168906 Physics. Springer Nature. 1976;6(6):717– a0 726. 17. Davies Paul (Editor) & Brown, Julian R. DOI: 10.1007/bf00708950 (Editor). The ghost in the atom: A ISSN 0015-9018 discussion of the mysteries of quantum Available:https://link.springer.com/article/1 physics. (Reissue Edition from the “Canto 0.1007%2FBF00708950 series”), Cambridge University Press; 24. Sinha KP, Sudarshan ECG. The superfluid Reissue edition; 2010. as a source of all interactions. Foundations ISBN-10: 9780521457286 of Physics. Springer Nature. 1978;8(11– ISBN-13: 978-0521457286 12):823–831. ASIN: 0521457289 DOI: 10.1007/bf00715056 Available:www.amazon.com/Ghost-Atom- ISSN 0015-9018 Discussion-Mysteries- Available:https://link.springer.com/article/1 Quantum/dp/0521457289 and 0.1007%2FBF00715056 www.goodreads.com/book/show/100633.T 25. Chimento LP, et al. Fermionic he_Ghost_in_the_Atom cosmologies. Journal of Physics: 18. Brunetti R, Zeilinger A. (Editors). Quantum Conference Series. 2010;306(2011): (Un)speakables” (a collection of essays in 012052. commemoration of John S. Bell, which is is 5th International Workshop DICE2010 (IOP the result of the "Quantum Publishing) (Un)speakables" conference organised by DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/306/1/012052 the University of Vienna), Springer, Berlin Available:https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod- 2002;Chapter 22. files- Available:www.springer.com/gp/book/9783 e/ec72e1177e54dc891490ad4afdd1d3e5 540427568 26. Verlinde EP. On the Origin of Gravity and 19. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. the Laws of Newton. JHEP. 2011;4:29. 1987;12(4):22. arXiv: 1001.0785. Available:http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB- Bibcode: 2011JHEP...04..029V. classiques/aflb124p001.pdf DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029 20. Popescu Ioan-Iovitz. Ether and etherons - S2CID 3597565 a possible reappraisal of the ether concept. Available:https://link.springer.com/article/1 translation from the Romanian Academy 0.1007%2FJHEP04%282011%29029 and Journal of Physics Stud. Cercet. Fiz., https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 1982;34:451-468. 27. Yoshiharu Kawamura. Fermionic scalar Available:www.iipopescu.com/ether_and_e field. arXiv:1406.6155; 2014. therons.html and Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6155 https://editura.mttlc.ro/carti/Iovitz%20- 28. Bœhm C, Fayet P. Scalar dark matter %20Etherons.CLP.pdf candidates; 2009. 21. Dirac Paul AM. Is there an Aether? Nature. Available:http://cds.cern.ch/record/618160 1952;169(4304):702. and http://cds.cern.ch/record/618160/files Bibcode: 1952Natur.169..702D 29. Gasperini M. Singularity Prevention and DOI: 10.1038/169702b0 Broken Lorentz Symmetry. Classical and Available:www.nature.com/articles/169702 Quantum Gravity. 1987;4(2):485–494. b0 Bibcode: 1987CQGra...4..485G 22. Sinha KP, Sivaram C, Sudarshan ECG. DOI: 10.1088/0264-9381/4/2/026 Aether as a superfluid state of particle- Available:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0264-9381/4/2/026 50

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

30. Jacobson Ted, Mattingly David. Gravity http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/O_Etr and a Preferred Frame. arXiv: gr- u_e.pdf), the single source in English (a qc/0007031; 2000. non-academic webarticle) which mentions DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.024028 Ohatrin’s, Anatolij Fedorovich (1989) paper Available:arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007031 and called “Microleptonic fields” (original article journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/Phys in Russian isn’t available online, but some RevD.64.024028; See also the review of information on that original article is also Einstein aether theories published by the available at these URLs: same authors in 2004 at these URLs: www.liveinternet.ru/users/valentin_tsmakali arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410001 and uk/post130059289 [in Russian] and www.researchgate.net/publication/196854 https://nimbouev.livejournal.com/60571.ht 3 ml [a text on Ohatrin’s “microleptons” 31. Christian Heinicke(Cologne U.), Peter written in rough English]). Indirect Baekler(Heinrich Heine U., Dusseldorf), information also available here: Friedrich W. Hehl(Cologne U. and Missouri http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/O_Etr U.). Einstein-aether theory, violation of u_e.pdf Lorentz invariance, and metric-affine 36. Battye Richard A, Moss Adam. Evidence gravity. Phys. Rev. D. 2005;72(2005): for massive neutrinos from cosmic 025012. microwave background and lensing DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.025012 observations. Physical Review Letters. Available:arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504005, 2014;112(5):051303. journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/Phys arXiv: 1308.5870 RevD.72.025012 Bibcode: 2014PhRvL.112e1303B Available:https://inspirehep.net/literature/6 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.051303 79503 PMID 24580586 32. Tom Złośnik, Federico Urban, Luca Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5870 Marzola, Tomi Koivisto. Spacetime and 37. Assamagan K, Ch. Brönnimann, Daum M, dark matter from spontaneous breaking of Forrer H, Frosch R, Gheno P, Horisberger Lorentz symmetry. arXiv: 1807.01100; R, Janousch M, Kettle PR, Spirig Th, 2018. Wigger C. Upper limit of the muon-neutrino Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.01100 mass and charged-pion mass from 33. Richard A. Battye, Boris Bolliet, Francesco momentum analysis of a surface muon Pace, Damien Trinh. Cosmologically viable beam”. Phys. Rev. D. 1996;53:6065. generalized Einstein-aether theories. Phys. Published 1 June 1996 Rev. D 99, 043515. 2019;99(4). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6065 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043515 Available:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstr Available:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstr act/10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6065 act/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043515 and 38. Barate R, Buskulic D, Decamp D, et al. An https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07805; See also Upper limit on the tau-neutrino mass from a dedicated PowerPoint presentation three-prong and five-prong tau decays. (written by the same authors) at this URL: Europ Phys J C. 1998;2(1998):395- indico.cern.ch/event/527550/contributions/ 406. 2519671/attachments/1447906/2231460/P DOI: 10.1007/s100520050149 ONT2017_Trinh.pdf Available:https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/work/268 34. Jussi Lindgren, Jukka Liukkonen. The 93; Heisenberg uncertainty principle as an Available:www.researchgate.net/publicatio endogenous equilibrium property of n/30403534 stochastic optimal control systems in 39. Patrignani C, et al. (Particle Data Group), quantum mechanics. Symmetry. 2020; Chin. Phys. C, 40, 100001. See: 12(9):1533. Introduction to the neutrino properties DOI: 10.3390/sym12091533 listings, revised in August 2013 by P. Available:https://www.mdpi.com/2073- Vogel (Caltech) and A. Piepke (University 8994/12/9/1533 of Alabama); 2016. 35. Marjanovic Goran. About Ether; 1980- Available:https://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/listings/r 1993. pp2016-list-neutrino-prop.pdf Available:http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjano 40. Glashow SL. Lévy, Maurice; Basdevant, vi and Jean-Louis; Speiser, David; Weyers, 51

Drăgoi; PSIJ, 24(10): 19-52, 2020; Article no.PSIJ.63084

Jacques; Gastmans, Raymond; Jacob, A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Maurice (eds.). "The Future of Elementary Sciences. 1928;117(778):610–624. Particle Physics". NATO Sci. Ser. B. Bibcode: 1928RSPSA.117..610D 1980;61:687. DOI:10.1098/rspa.1928.0023 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-7197-7 Available:https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ ISBN 978-1-4684-7199-1 doi/10.1098/rspa.1928.0023 44. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi. On a Plausible triple Available:https://link.springer.com/book/10. electro-gravito-informational significance of 1007%2F978-1-4684-7197-7 the fine structure constant. Physical 41. Mohapatra RN, Senjanovic G. Neutrino Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: mass and spontaneous parity non- 2348-0130. 2017;15(3). conservation. Phys. Rev. Lett. DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2017/34613 1980;44(14):912–915. Available:www.sciencedomain.org/abstract Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44..912M /20204 and DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912 www.researchgate.net/publication/318762 Available:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstra 059 ct/10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912 45. Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi. (Toy-model) A 42. Schechter J, Valle J. Neutrino masses in Simple “Digital” Vacuum Composed of SU(2) ⊗ U(1) theories. Phys. Rev. 1980; Space Voxels with Quantized Energetic 22(9):2227–2235. States. Physical Science International Journal (PSIJ), ISSN: 2348-0130. 2018; Bibcode:1980PhRvD..22.2227S 18(1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227 DOI: 10.9734/PSIJ/2018/41391 Available:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstr Available:www.sciencedomain.org/abstract act/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227 /24892 and 43. Dirac PAM. The quantum theory of the www.researchgate.net/publication/325490 electron. Proceedings of the Royal Society 276 ______© 2020 Drăgoi; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history: The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/63084

52