Subject: Re: Higgs boson(s), if any
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:57:10 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>

RE: Jonathan R. Ellis, Particle Physics and Cosmology, astro-ph/0305038. Submitted to World Scientific on May 5, 2003


Dear Professor Ellis,

I'm afraid there are some serious omissions in your astro-ph/0305038, which has been submitted today to World Scientific.

You wrote: "The Standard Model agrees with all confirmed experimental data from accelerators, but is theoretically very unsatisfactory [14, 15]. It does not explain the particle quantum numbers, such as the electric charge Q, weak isospin I,  hypercharge Y and colour, and contains at least 19 arbitrary parameters. (...) As if the above 19 parameters were insufficient to appall you, at least nine more parameters must be introduced to accommodate the neutrino oscillations discussed in the next Lecture (...)."

In my email of Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:54:04 +0200 (printed below), I asked you to 'put your cards on the table' by formulating a *falsifiable* hypothesis about those Higgs. This is what science is all about.

You also wrote: "We have seen in these lectures that the Standard Model must underlie any description of the physics of the early Universe. (...) Continued progress in understanding these issues will involve a complex interplay between particle physics and cosmology, involving experiments at new accelerators such as the LHC, as well as new observations."

Please see above.

"Moreover, there are many other cosmological parameters that we should also seek to explain. Gravity is characterized by at least two parameters, the Newton constant G_N and the cosmological vacuum energy. We may also want to construct a field-theoretical model for inflation, and we certainly need to explain the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. So there is plenty of scope for physics beyond the Standard Model."

Therefore the Standard Model must NOT underlie any description of the physics of the early Universe, contrary to your statement above.

As to the field-theoretical model for inflation, please see

I'm wondering if you consider your paper suitable for publication by World Scientific.

Have you or any of your colleagues explored the possibility that the number of quarks may follow a Fibonacci sequence? Please see

I will appreciate your professional comments, as well as those by your colleagues.

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:54:04 +0200, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
> Dear Professor Ellis,
> Perhaps you may recall my first letter to you sent in 1989, which
> was
prompted by a statement of yours that if the top quark can not
> be
observed, you will commit a hara-kiri.
> I'm wondering if you or any of your colleagues are confident about
> the
Higgs boson(s). No hara-kiri, just a falsifiable hypothesis.
> Something
that could state 'if  A , then Higgs boson(s) can not be
> observed in
principle'. I was not able to find such statement. Hope
> you or some of
your colleagues could help.
> For more info on this subject, see