I bet $100 that the Higgs will not be discovered. Instead, the number of quarks will jump to 8 and more, in a Fibonacci sequence.

D. Chakalov
Thursday, January 9, 2003, 15:56:04 GMT



As Howard Georgi explained in 2007, "it makes a big difference whether we measure masses in grams or kilograms. But in a scale-invariant world, it makes no difference at all." Then he added: "An interesting result of my analysis is that such a distribution for a process that produces unparticles looks like the distribution for a fractional number (Sic! - D.C.) of massless particles. This is weird, but it follows very simply from the scale invariance of the unparticles. It is the first glimmer of an answer to the question of how unparticles begin to show up."

More from Wiki. An explanation from Tom Siegfried: "Physicists analyzing the collisions try to make sure that the energy of all the debris particles adds up to the energy going into the collision. If the debris energy doesn't add up -- that is, if some of the energy goes missing -- the logical conclusion is that something invisible has carried some energy away."

Where? That's the big question. In the framework of GR, if we try to resolve the current problems with energy conservation in GR, perhaps "something invisible" (called gravitational waves) could have been coupled to the binary star PSR 1913+16, much like H. Georgi's unparticles: the ultimate "dark stuff" which cannot be directly observed in principle, being just 'potential reality' [Ref. 1] with continuous mass spectrum (Hrvoje Nikolic; see also Tatsuru Kikuchi and Domenico Giulini, Sec. 3).

It shows up only as "charging" or "discharging" the "battery" of potential reality, as I tried to explain to my teenage daughter in August 2006. This "battery" of potential reality has to be included in the balance of energy exchange within the closed system 'physical reality & potential reality'. Otherwise the inevitable lack of energy conservation, due to the presence of evolving cosmological "constant" (R. Penrose), will produce phenomena which will look either like creatio ex nihilo or like some non-unitary loss of (positive) mass and energy (and we would feel like parapsychologists).

Perhaps in the realm of potential reality the negative matter - positive matter "nullification" (Bob Forward) is reversible (notice my favicon), in such a way that adding or subtracting positive energy density to the realm of 'physical reality' does not disturb the energy balance of 'physical reality & potential reality'.

Here is a brief list of open questions from Kingman Cheung et al., Unparticle Phenomenology -- A Mini Review, arXiv:0809.0995v2 [hep-ph]:

"How does dimensional transmutation occur that leads to the unparticle phenomena? Is unparticle stable? What is the partition function of a system of unparticle? How does one couple gauge field (cf. Holger Lyre - D.C.) to unparticle? etc."

And another question, from my prediction (January 9, 2003): Can we model the scale-invariant world with a Fibonacci sequence of unparticles, which would suggest a Fibonacci sequence of quarks?

We encounter fractals governed by the Fibonacci sequence literally everywhere, from galaxies to the dynamics of financial market.


In the context of high-energy physics, the only safe bet is that LHC, when fixed later this year, will produce yet another "dark stuff" surprise: "turtles all the way down", stacked with a Fibonacci sequence of unparticles.

This is the only way to protect the ultimate "god particle" or Aristotelian First Cause -- the Unmoved Mover -- from being exposed explicitly in the physical world. It can show up only as "pure math", being 'the ideal monad without windows'. Nothing can go further, not even the human mind. Which is wonderful, because otherwise there will be a scientific proof of [John 1:1]. Thank God, this is impossible.






D. Chakalov
March 3, 2009
Last update: October 15, 2009

[Ref. 1] J. S. Bell, in The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics, ed. by P.C.W. Davies and Julian Russell Brown, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 49-50:

“The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now, if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. [This] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality and so on. And so, it’s precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether.”



Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:37:06 +0300
Subject: arXiv:0904.1375v2, Can cosmic acceleration be caused by exotic massless particles?
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Wojciech Zakrzewski <[email protected]>,
Peter Stichel <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrei Smilga <[email protected]>,
Richard Woodard <[email protected]>,
Gerardus <[email protected]>,
Stefan <[email protected]>

Dear colleagues,

Regarding your nonrelativistic massless particle model (Sec. 3.5 and p. 14) and the idea of "dynamically generated active gravitational mass density of either sign which can then be a source of the gravitational field" (p. 4), I wonder if you can include in your model (i) the proposal by 't Hooft about a "copy" of all known matter particles with negative mass squared (Stefan Nobbenhuis, arXiv:gr-qc/0411093v3, Sec. 3.2), and (ii) Georgi's unparticles
(Kingman Cheung et al., arXiv:0809.0995v2 [hep-ph]).

I also wonder if you or some of your colleagues can include Georgi's unparticles into *any* DDE model.

My efforts can be read at

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


Subject: arXiv:0908.4257v1 [hep-th], Model 8
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:58:19 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Katherine Jones-Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Carl Bender <[email protected]>,
Philip Mannheim <[email protected]>,
Michael J W Hall <[email protected]>,
Ilja Schmelzer <[email protected]>

Dear Dr. Jones-Smith,

Regarding your Model 8, I wonder if it is relevant to the ideas of Bryan Sanctuary


My efforts can be read at


Your critical comments, and those from your colleagues, will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Dimi Chakalov


Subject: "... unless the state of the whole universe is known"
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:10:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Lorenzo Maccone <[email protected]>
Cc: Bryan Sanctuary <[email protected]>

Dear Dr. Maccone,

It is a real pleasure to read your fundamental article,

Since you quoted John Wheeler (“The past exists only insofar as it is recorded in the present”), I wonder why you missed his famous quote from the Pekan Streen Cafe in Austin: "Time is Nature’s way of keeping things from happening all at once." The latter quote is hinting to 'the unknown unknown' in its ontological form, presented with a hypothetical 'global mode of spacetime' at


As to QM, I wonder if you know Bryan Sanctuary,

See Sec. 4 in


Dimi Chakalov



Subject: Re: Nature 468, 56-59 (4 November 2010)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:05:00 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: John F Donoghue <[email protected]>
Cc: D J Toms <[email protected]>,
Hamish Johnston <[email protected]>

Dear Dr. Donoghue,

You are sweeping the garbage under the rug, because it looks "small" to you.

If you were doing analytical chemistry, and your task was to prove the presence of NaCl in your sample, you must not contaminate it with NaCl from the outset.

> the cosmological constant IS small - and that smallness is the
> conceptual problem that we have with it. In the units relevant for
> gravity it is 10^-122. Both Toms and I are justified in neglecting it.

I will appreciate if you and your colleagues respond professionally.

Do you believe that can talk about *anything* related to GR by using a flat background?

Please explain *professionally* the absence of a larger value of cosmological constant by applying GR to the case under consideration. Do NOT contaminate your task with assumptions which match the end result published (regrettably) in Nature.

Namely, do NOT ignore the curvature of spacetime (cf. (4) in John Baez below).

Hamish: You removed my posting. Would you like to give you references, since 1930s, to the problem in question? Please see [Ref. 1] and the online paper by John Baez at


Looking forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov

[Ref. 1] Richard Feynman (interview recorded for the BBC in 1987), in Superstrings, A Theory of Everything, ed. by P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, p. 201.

"In the quantum field theories, there is an energy associated with what we call the vacuum in which everything has settled down to the lowest energy; that energy is not zero-according to the theory. Now gravity is supposed to interact with every form of energy and should interact then with this vacuum energy. And therefore, so to speak, a vacuum would have a weight -- an equivalent mass energy -- and would produce a gravitational field. Well, it doesn't! The gravitational field produced by the energy in the electromagnetic field in a vacuum -- where there's no light, just quiet, nothing -- should be enormous, so enormous, it would be obvious. The fact is, it's zero! Or so small that it's completely in disagreement with what we'd expect from the field theory. This problem is sometimes called the cosmological constant problem. It suggests that we're missing something in our formulation of the theory of gravity."

> On 11/5/2010 5:42 AM, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>> Dear Dr. Toms,
>> I left a critical comment at
>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44235
>> If you disagree, please write me back.
>> Kindest regards,
>> Dimi Chakalov



Subject: Quarks in Fibonacci sequence
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:38:20 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Oscar Wallace Greenberg <[email protected]>
Cc: David J Miller <[email protected]>, Roman Jackiw <[email protected]>,
Chris Quigg <[email protected]>,
Bruce Chrisman - Office of Research <[email protected]>,
Katie Yurkewicz - LHC Communication <[email protected]>,
Judy Jackson - News Contacts <[email protected]>,
James Gillies <[email protected]>,
Renilde Vanden Broeck <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Dear Dr. Greenberg,

May I inform you that five years ago, on 9 January 2003, I predicted that the Higgs will not be discovered. Instead, the number of quarks will jump to 8 and more, in a Fibonacci sequence,


I hope you and your colleagues will not respond like Oppenheimer: "But I don't believe a word of it." (arXiv:0803.0992v1, p. 8). Instead of spending billions of dollars and euro for LHC, why not use blank notebooks and sharp pencils?

Yours sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov


Note: As Leon Lederman acknowledged, with a mild Brooklyn accent: "Well, if we don't have a Higgs, there must be something that does the things that we've invented the Higgs for."

This "something" is what this web site is all about: potential reality. Think of it as the Holon of Arthur Koestler, which correlates a shoal of fish swinging along a coral reef. At the beginning of the quantum realm, the Holon will absorb the potential values of the "complementary" observables from Heisenberg "uncertainty" relations, interpreted here as flexibility for the trajectories of all fish sharing a 'common wave function'. At this layer, corresponding to non-relativistic QM, the Holon fixes quantum trajectories only, just like the trajectories of every fish from the shoal. At the next layer of QCD and non-Abelian gauge fields, the Holon will begin to "absorb" the mass of elementary particles, and hence we get what physicists call quarks -- totally hidden or "confined" by default. But we have left the electron out from the outset. Thus, there should exist a third layer at which the Holon will "absorb" the mass of all fermions as well. Physically, you will only get more quarks, in Fibonacci sequence.

NB: All you need is a brand new extension of the standard model, such that the next layer of eight quarks will contain the current quarks "embedded" in it, in a way resembling the structure of cognitive concepts.

Surely the "Higgs mechanism" was needed to fix the problems of the standard model. But claiming that the Higgs boson may be some "God particle" (L. Lederman), bestowing the mass of other particles, is a joke.

Besides, the issue is far more important than the story in L. Lederman's book: recall Kurt Lewin's Genidentität thesis and the puzzle of particle identity (Chris Quigg, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007) 1019-1053; cf. Sec. 6, p. 1032, 'The problem of identity'), that is, the "sameness" of the particles of the same type, which MTW considered "a central mystery of physics" (C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, p. 1215). We need a mechanism that can create and sustain 1080 identical electrons, say. Don't expect Mother Nature to produce some new law different than the one discovered by Fibonacci, just because you've build an extremely expensive toy. It was "an understandable ploy."

On 21 September 2008, I will elaborate on my prediction from 9 January 2003 above, and will comment on the question posed by Chris Quigg: "How does H interact with itself?"

From: Chris Quigg (16 August 2006), The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics, Slide 29

The non-existence of Higgs boson will indeed start a new adventure!

Meanwhile, check out a beautiful web site here, my email to Takashi Nakano from 30 July 2003 here, and Mario Livio's book, Ch. 5, p. 100. Do pions dominate the vacuum (Dragan Hajdukovic)?

So far two out-of-office automated replies have been received, from Bruce Chrisman and Chris Quigg (see below). As of today, March 20th, no intelligent reply has reached me, and probably never will. If you contaminate science with money, politics, and obsessions with "the God particle", what can you expect from 'where the Web was born'?

Actually, you never know. As they recently acknowledged, "CERN has taken a big gamble on Grid technology, and is pushing the technology forward in several ways, in order to make the 2008 LHC deadline." This frank statement sounds sufficiently unclear to spark genuine optimism. Let me try.

As an offspring from the incredible expensive toy known as LHC, the so-called Grid technology might be useful to my grandchildren's networking, I suppose. Besides, if we compare LHC to "GW astronomy", one should expect with the latter to wind up with dozens of kilometers of dark air-conditioned tunnels from LIGO and the like, which may be used for wine cellars only, while the three LISA satellites will be a total space junk.

On this background, the "Grid technology" sounds totally unclear yet really exciting! It will be certainly terribly expensive, but ... who cares?

D. Chakalov
March 10, 2008
Last update: March 20, 2008


Subject: Bruce Chrisman Out of Office
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:38:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Auto-submitted: auto-replied

I am on furlough the week of 3/10-16 and hence not available to respond promptly. If you need prompt assistance contact my assistant marilyn Dixon at [email protected]


Subject: Absence from Fermilab
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:38:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Auto-submitted: auto-replied

I will be in Europe from March 8 through 16. If you must reach me for an urgent matter, please contact Olivia Vizcarra ([email protected]).

Best wishes,




Holger Lyre (see also Lyre & Eynck) argues against the Higgs mechanism [Ref. 1, p. 11], and has provided arguments supporting my prediction from 9 January 2003: the so-called Higgs boson cannot be 'physical reality', hence will never be directly observed.

Notice that the notion of 'potential reality' falls in the basket of "mystic influence from non-observable physical beables to observable ones" (Holger Lyre); only it is anything but "mystic", in my opinion. Notice also the sentence below: "one would not think that any physics flows out of the breaking of coordinate invariance!"

But if the physics in question flows out from 'the universe as ONE', the "flow" would, in the present-day GR, look like coming from some gauge-dependent stuff, and would inevitably suggest breaking of coordinate invariance (recall, for example, the cosmic equator).

NB: Again, in the present-day GR, there is no other option for "absolute structures" (Domenico Giulini) to show up in the local mode of spacetime. The only way they could enter today's GR is as some disguised "gauge-dependent" objects -- the puzzle is known since 1918, if not earlier.

The empirical fact that we can observe the cosmological time (Thomas Thiemann) and look through 3-D space (Martin Bojowald) constitute the most acute unresolved puzzles of GR.

More on such "dark" puzzles from Eric Linder and Daniel Eisenstein here, and on Quantum Theory & General Relativity here and here. And if you understand the nuts and bolts of GR, think deeply on the following question: what kind of reality is presented with the Christoffel symbol (Graham Nerlich)? And how do you understand Lluis Bel's conjecture that "the two connections, Christoffel’s and Weitzenböck’s, do not have to be considered as options of an alternative, but that in the contrary they have to be correlated and used jointly" (arXiv:0805.0846v2 [gr-qc])?

What if the torsion degree of freedom (cf. Mamdouh Wanas, 0809.5040v1 [gr-qc]) is "dark" as well? Can we unveil in the Riemann-Cartan geometry two opposite "torsion" degrees of freedom (cf. Kevin Brown), which could account for implosion (CDM) and explosion/expansion (DDE)? Perhaps the observable (local mode of spacetime) effect from the torsion degrees of freedom [Ref. 2] is manifested with the cosmic equator (cf. Mário Everaldo de Souza), as a residual effect from the two "dark", tug-of-war effects of gravity, CDM and DDE.

Last but not least, check out my talk on 21 September 2008.

D. Chakalov
June 10, 2008
Last update: October 11, 2008


[Ref. 1] Holger Lyre, Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist? arXiv:0806.1359v1 [physics.gen-ph]

pp. 2-3: "... the status of the symmetries in question, gauge symmetries, is in fact a non-empirical or merely conventional one precisely in the sense that neither global nor local gauge transformations possess any real instantiations (i.e. realizations in the world). Rather their status is comparable to the status of coordinate transformations (the status of gauge symmetries will be addressed in detail in Sec. 3.1).

"How is it then possible to instantiate a mechanism, let alone a dynamics of mass generation, in the breaking of such a kind of symmetry?

"Indeed, how can any physical mechanism arise from the breaking of a merely conventional symmetry requirement? (Similarly, one would not think that any physics flows out of the breaking of coordinate invariance! -- Again this will be addressed in detail in Sec. 3.1.)

p. 8: "While such an argument is at best satisfying from a pragmatic and instrumentalist perspective, it still leaves open the ontological question of an appropriate interpretation of physical entities with imaginary masses.

p. 11: "... neither imaginary mass particles, nor GSW Goldstone bosons, nor quantum gauge transformations have any real instantiations in nature. The whole story about the “mechanism” is just a story about ways of
representing the theory and fixing the gauge."

[Ref. 2] Warren Davis, What is a tensor?

"Spinors differ from tensors in how the values of their elements change under coordinate transformations. For example, the values of the components of all tensors, regardless of order, return to their original values under a 360-degree rotation of the coordinate system in which the components are described. By contrast, the components of spinors change sign under a 360-degree rotation, and do not return to their original values until the describing coordinate system has been rotated through two full rotations = 720-degrees!"



Subject: Re: Netiquette
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:10:43 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Holger Lyre <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

Dear Dr. Lyre,

> I do _not_ target the existence of the Higgs boson, but rather the usual
> story of introducing it by means of a gauge-breaking "mechanism".

In the context of the theory proposed at my web site, what you did is more than enough to support my prediction from January 2003. Thank you.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


Subject: arXiv:0909.3468v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:41:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Chris Heunen <[email protected]>
Cc: N P Landsman <[email protected]>,
Bas Spitters <[email protected]>,
Andreas Döring <[email protected]>,
Edward Anderson <[email protected]>,
Smaragda Kessari <[email protected]>,
Charis Anastopoulos <[email protected]>,
Konstantina Savvidou <[email protected]>,
[email protected]

Hi Chris,

You and your colleagues have not replied to my previous emails, so I'll be very brief.

I'm afraid you are on a wrong track, as you're trying to see the quantum world through topos "glasses"; check out an outline at


Wrong physics dressed with advanced math is really bad thing. Do you want to look like A. Connes?


Take care,

D. Chakalov

Chris Heunen et al., arXiv:0909.3468v1 [quant-ph]:

"Our approach is based on a specific mathematical interpretation of Bohr’s ‘doctrine of classical concepts’ [78],  which in its original form states, roughly speaking, that the empirical content of a quantum theory is entirely contained in its effects on classical physics. In other words, the quantum world can only be seen through classical glasses.

"In view of the obscure and wholly unmathematical way of Bohr’s writings, it is not a priori clear what this means mathematically, but we interpret this doctrine as follows: all physically relevant information contained in a noncommutative (unital) C*-algebra A (in its role of the algebra of observables of some quantum system) is contained in the family of its commutative unital C*-algebras."


Subject: Antigravitation, arXiv:0909.3456v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:27:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Sabine Hossenfelder <[email protected]>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <[email protected]>,
Ian Drummond <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
S Crothers <[email protected]>,
S Tieu <[email protected]>

Dear Dr. Hossenfelder,

I would like, if I may, to ask a few questions.

I read your latest paper with great interest, but couldn't understand some of your restrictive reasoning. I hope you and your colleagues could help me understand the subtleties of the stuff with negative "charge".

1. Why torsion-free-ness ? The textbook assumption that matter couples to gravity only "through" the metric (Ian Drummond, arXiv:astro-ph/0008234v2, Sec. 8) seems to imply that torsion plays no role in positive matter gravity. But torsion is not zero,


Q1: Is it conceivable that torsion degrees of freedom could be somehow unlocked?

Q1.1: Is it possible that torsion degrees of freedom may produce two "dark" and opposite, tug-of-war components in positive matter gravity,
CDM and "dark energy"?

2. You seem to fear that (arXiv:0909.3456v1 [gr-qc], p. 1) "existence of negative masses would allow for infinite production of particle pairs. Because energy conservation does not forbid production of a zero net sum out of nothing, a disastrous vacuum decay would result."

Q2: What if we forget about "black holes", and try to explain GRBs along the lines of Q1?

Regarding BH-like effects of negative matter, please see Yakov Terletsky,


Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov




Subject: Phenomenological Quantum Gravity, arXiv:0911.2761v1
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:36:41 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Sabine Hossenfelder <[email protected]>
Cc: Tony Rothman <[email protected]>,
Greg Landsberg <[email protected]>,
Cumrun Vafa <[email protected]>,
Thomas Mueller <[email protected]>,
Lee Smolin <[email protected]>,
Rafael Sorkin <[email protected]>

Hello Sabine,

Pity you ignored my previous email.

In your latest essay, you and Lee wrote: "Indeed, the most fundamental question one can ask about a physical system is what is the symmetry of its ground state. (...) One plausible hypothesis is that the principle of relativity breaks down at the scale E_Pl, so there is a preferred state of motion and rest."

But you can have 'a preferred state of motion and rest', and Mach's 'fixed stars' reference frame, without any violation of the principle of relativity -- check out Schrödinger,


You also wrote: "If this should turn out to be a correct description of Nature, we would see the production of gravitons and black holes at the LHC [15]."

And pigs will fly :-)

Notice that you are not ignoring some guy from Borneo, but the legacy of Erwin Schrödinger.

If you disagree, please make a modest effort to reply professionally.
I know you can do it.

I extend this offer to all recipients of this email.




Subject: How to uncover "the proper time [tau] along spacetime trajectories"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:39:43 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <[email protected]>
To: Carlo Rovelli <[email protected]>
Cc: Lee Smolin <[email protected]>


I wish to thank you for your paper, quoted at


Lee wrote me (Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:30:25 +0000 (BST)) "don't refer me to web pages", but I'm afraid he completely missed the fourth road to quantum gravity,


I suppose you are smarter, and hope some day you will uncover [tau], with "scrupulous intellectual honesty", as you once put it.