Article Index

 

 

 

3.2 Baryogenesis without Antimatter

 

 

Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry: CERN Experiments On Particles Containing Charm Quark Fail To Detect CP Violation

By Avaneesh Pandey @avaneeshp88 On 09/29/16 AT 7:12 AM

cern-lhc.PNG
A view of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Photo: CERN

Why is there something rather than nothing? This is a question that has, for the longest time, perplexed physicists.
If our current understanding of the universe is correct, it should not even exist. The very fact that planets, stars and galaxies exist undercuts one of the most fundamental premises of particle physics — that the Big Bang, which created our universe 13.8 billion years ago, created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
If this really happened, why, given that matter and antimatter particles annihilate each other when they collide, does anything exist at all? Why do you and I exist when the laws of physics, as we know them, seem to dictate that the cosmos should be nothing but a wasteland strewn with leftover energy?
Obviously, as attested by the fact that we exist, there is a fundamental difference between matter and antimatter. Either significantly more matter was created by the Big Bang, or there is a fundamental, as-of-yet-undiscovered asymmetry between matter particles and their antimatter counterparts — one that would have given the former an edge over the latter in the race for survival.

The quest to discover this asymmetry is a goal that has witnessed the involvement of several particle physicists from across the world, including researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) — the institution that houses the world’s most powerful particle collider.
On Wednesday, researchers associated with the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider announced that they had made the most precise measurement of Charge-Parity (CP) violation among particles containing a charm quark.
Quarks, the fundamental particles that make up protons and neutrons, come in six different “flavors” — up, down, strange, top, bottom and charm. Each quark has an antimatter equivalent known as antiquark. Both protons and neutrons — contained within the nucleus of an atom — are made up of three quarks bound together.
Related Stories

The Standard Model of particle physics, which describes how three of the four known fundamental forces work, has a central tenet — charge-parity symmetry, which posits that the laws of physics remain unchanged even if a particle is replaced with its antiparticle, which has the opposite charge, and if its spatial coordinates are inverted.
If a significant violation of CP symmetry is detected, it would not only hint at the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model, it would also help us understand why the universe is completely devoid of antimatter.

So far, however, the extent of CP violation detected among elementary particles is not significant enough to explain the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry — something that was further confirmed by the precise measurements carried out by LHCb researchers.
“The LHCb collaboration made a precise comparison between the decay lifetime of a particle called a D0meson (formed by a charm quark and an up antiquark) and its anti-matter counterpart D0 (formed by an charm antiquark and up quark), when decaying either to a pair of pions or a pair of kaons. Any difference in these lifetimes would provide strong evidence that an additional source of CP violation is at work,” CERN said in the statement. “The latest results indicate that the lifetimes of the D0 and D0 particles, measured using their decays to pions or kaons, are still consistent, thereby demonstrating that any CP violation effect that is present must indeed be at a tiny level.”

baryogenesis.

There is no CP-violation in any quark whose constituents are up-quarks and anti-up quarks, as is the case for the charm quarks c-uu[bar]u and c[bar]=u[bar]uu[bar], as the CP violation requires Inner-Ring (down-antidown) or Outer-Ring (strange-antistrange) interaction.

ufoqrpdf.

The Top-Super Diquark Resonance of CERN - December 15th, 2015

As can be calculated from the table entries below; a Top-Super Diquark Resonance is predicted as a (ds)bar(ss)=(ds)barS or a (ds)(ss)bar=(ds)Sbar diquark complex averaged at (182.758+596.907)GeV=779.67 GeV.
atlas_cms_diphoton_2015--31707-.31710.

In the diquark triplet {dd; ds; ss}={Dainty; Top; Super} a Super-Superbar resonance at 1.194 TeV can also be inferred with the Super-Dainty resonance at 652.9 GeV and the Top-Dainty resonance at 238.7 GeV 'suppressed' by the Higgs Boson summation as indicated below. Supersymmetric partners become unnecessary in the Standard Model, extended into the diquark hierarchies.

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: po, p+, p-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: Ko, K+, K-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (mc=9.9247245x10-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xmP) and setting (mc) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n0;p+)=939.642 MeV*}.


The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.


Is This the Beginning of the End of the Standard Model?

Posted on December 16, 2015 | 15 Comments
Was yesterday the day when a crack appeared in the Standard Model that will lead to its demise? Maybe. It was a very interesting day, that’s for sure. [Here’s yesterday’s article on the results as they appeared.]
I find the following plot useful… it shows the results on photon pairs from ATLAS and CMS superposed for comparison. [I take only the central events from CMS because the events that have a photon in the endcap don’t show much (there are excesses and deficits in the interesting region) and because it makes the plot too cluttered; suffice it to say that the endcap photons show nothing unusual.] The challenge is that ATLAS uses a linear horizontal axis while CMS uses a logarithmic one, but in the interesting region of 600-800 GeV you can more or less line them up. Notice that CMS’s bins are narrower than ATLAS’s by a factor of 2.
atlas_cms_diphoton_2015-.31707.
The diphoton results from ATLAS (top) and CMS (bottom) arranged so that the 600, 700 and 800 GeV locations (blue vertical lines) line up almost perfectly. (The plots do not line up away from this region!) The data are the black dots (ignore the bottom section of CMS’s plot for now.) Notice that the obvious bumps in the two data sets appear in more or less the same place. The bump in ATLAS’s data is both higher (more statistically significant) and significantly wider.


Both plots definitely show a bump. The two experiments have rather similar amounts of data, so we might have hoped for something more similar in the bumps, but the number of events in each bump is small and statistical flukes can play all sorts of tricks.
Of course your eye can play tricks too. A bump of a low significance with a small number of events looks much more impressive on a logarithmic plot than a bump of equal significance with a larger number of events — so beware that bias, which makes the curves to the left of the bump appear smoother and more featureless than they actually are. [For instance, in the lower register of CMS’s plot, notice the bump around 350.]

We’re in that interesting moment when all we can say is that there might be something real and new in this data, and we have to take it very seriously. We also have to take the statistical analyses of these bumps seriously, and they’re not as promising as these bumps look by eye. If I hadn’t seen the statistical significances that ATLAS and CMS quoted, I’d have been more optimistic.

Also disappointing is that ATLAS’s new search is not very different from their Run 1 search of the same type, and only uses 3.2 inverse femtobarns of data, less than the 3.5 that they can use in a few other cases… and CMS uses 2.6 inverse femtobarns. So this makes ATLAS less sensitive and CMS more sensitive than I was originally estimating… and makes it even less clear why ATLAS would be more sensitive in Run 2 to this signal than they were in Run 1, given the small amount of Run 2 data. [One can check that if the events really have 750 GeV of energy and come from gluon collisions, the sensitivity of the Run 1 and Run 2 searches are comparable, so one should consider combining them, which would reduce the significance of the ATLAS excess. Not to combine them is to “cherry pick”.]

By the way, we heard that the excess events do not look very different from the events seen on either side of the bump; they don’t, for instance, have much higher total energy. That means that a higher-energy process, one that produces a new particle at 750 GeV indirectly, can’t be a cause of big jump in the 13 TeV production rate relative to 8 TeV. So one can’t hide behind this possible explanation for why a putative signal is seen brightly in Run 2 and was barely seen, if at all, in Run 1.
Of course the number of events is small and so these oddities could just be due to statistical flukes doing funny things with a real signal. The question is whether it could just be statistical flukes doing funny things with the known background, which also has a small number of events.
And we should also, in tempering our enthusiasm, remember this plot: the diboson excess that so many were excited about this summer. Bumps often appear, and they usually go away. R.I.P.
atlas_dibosonxs-.31708.
The most dramatic of the excesses in the production of two W or Z bosons from Run 1 data, as seen in ATLAS work published earlier this year. That bump excited a lot of people. But it doesn’t appear to be supported by Run 2 data. A cautionary tale.

Nevertheless, there’s nothing about this diphoton excess which makes it obvious that one should be pessimistic about it. It’s inconclusive: depending on the statistical questions you ask (whether you combine ATLAS and CMS Run 2, whether you try to combine ATLAS Run 1 and Run 2, whether you worry about whether the resonance is wide or narrow), you can draw positive or agnostic conclusions. It’s hard to draw entirely negative conclusions… and that’s a reason for optimism.

Six months or so from now — or less, if we can use this excess as a clue to find something more convincing within the existing data — we’ll likely say “R.I.P.” again. Will we bury this little excess, or the Standard Model itself?

http://profmattstrassler.com/2015/12/16/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-standard-model/

Hints of Higgs Boson at 125 GeV Are Found:
Congratulations to All the People at LHC!
cover_issue_23_en_us--16765-.31709.



Refined Higgs Rumours, Higgs Boson Live Blog: Analysis of the CERN Announcement, Has CERN Found the God Particle? A Calculation, Electron Spin Precession for the Time Fractional Pauli Equation, Plane Wave Solutions of Weakened Field Equations in a Plane Symmetric Space-time-II, Plane Wave Solutions of Field Equations of Israel and Trollope's Unified Field Theory in V5, If the LHC Particle Is Real, What Is One of the Other Possibilities than the Higgs Boson? What is Reality in a Holographic World? Searching for Earth’s Twin.

Editor: Huping HU, Ph.D., J.D.; Editor-at-Large: Philip E. Gibbs, Ph.D.

ISSN: 2153-8301

Dear Huping!

The Higgs Boson resonance, found by ATLAS and CMS is a diquark resonance.

Excerpt:

"Ok, now I'll print some excerpt for the more technically inclined reader regarding the Higgs Boson and its 'make-up', but highlight the important relevant bit (wrt to this discovery of a 160 GeV Higgs Boson energy, and incorporating the lower energy between 92 GeV and to the upper dainty level at 130 GeV as part of the diquark triplet of the associated topomium energy level) at the end.

In particular, as the bottomium doublet minimum is at 5,245.495 MeV* and the topomium triplet minimum is at 55,956.0 MeV* in terms of their characteristic Kernel-Means, their doubled sum indicates a particle-decay excess at the recently publisized ~125 GeV energy level in 2x(5.246+55.956) GeV* = 122.404 GeV* (or 122.102 GeV SI).
These are the two means from ATLAS {116-130 GeV as 123 GeV} and CMS {115-127 GeV as 121 GeV} respectively.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html

Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI.""




This newest data/discovery about the Higgs Boson aka the 'God-Particle' states, that there seems to be a 'resonance-blip' at an energy of about 160 GeV and as just one of say 5 Higgs Bosons for a 'minimal supersymmetry'.
One, the lowest form of the Higgs Boson is said to be about 110 GeV in the Standard Model. There is also a convergence of the HB to an energy level of so 120 GeV from some other models.
Now the whole thing , according to Quantum Relativity' about the Higgs Boson, is that IT IS NOT a particular particle, but relates to ALL particles in its 'scalar nature' as a restmass inducer.

I have discussed the Higgs Boson many times before; but would like here to show in a very simple analysis that the Higgs Boson MUST show a blip at the 160 GeV mark and due to its nature as a 'polarity' neutraliser (a scalar particle has no charge and no spin, but can be made up of two opposite electric charges and say two opposing chiralities of spin orientations.)

Without worrying about details, first consider the following table which contains all the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics. The details are found in the Planck-String transformations discussed elesewhere.

The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xmps/[ec]) modulated in (SNI/EMI={Cuberoot of [Alpha]}/[Alpha]), the intrisic unified Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x([ec])/(mpsxa<2/3>), where the (Cuberoot of [Alpha]2 is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: po, p+, p-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: Ko, K+, K-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (mc=9.9247245x10-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xmP) and setting (mc) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n0;p+)=939.642 MeV*}.


The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.

As I have shown, the energy resonances of the Z-boson (uncharged) represents an 'average' or statistical mean value of the 'Top-Quark' and the Upper-Limit for the Higgs Boson is a similar 'Super-Quark' 'average' and as the weak interaction unification energy.

The hitherto postulated Higgs Boson mass of so 110 GeV is the Omicron-resonance, fully predicted from the table above (unique to Quantum Relativity).
Now the most fundamental way to generate the Higgs Boson as a 'weak interaction' gauge is through the coupling of two equal mass, but oppositely charged W-bosons (of whom the Zo is the uncharged counterpart).

We have seen, that the W-mass is a summation of all the other quark-masses as kernel-means from the strangeness upwards to the truth-quark level.
So simply doubling the 80.47 GeV mass of the weak-interaction gauge boson must represent the basic form of the Higgs Boson and that is 160.9 GeV.

Simplicity indeed and just the way Quantum Relativity describes the creation of the Higgs Boson from even more fundamental templates of the so called 'gauges'. The Higgs Boson is massless but consists of two classical electron rings and a massless doubled neutrino kernel, and then emerges in the magnetocharge induction AS mass carrying gauges.

This massless neutrino kernel now crystallises our atomic solar system.


Next we interpret this scalar (or sterile) Double-Higgs (anti)neutrino as a majoron and lose the distinction between antineutrino and neutrino eigenstates.

We can only do this in the case of the Zo decay pattern, which engage the boson spin of the Zo as a superposition of two antineutrinos for the matter case and the superposition of two neutrinos in the antimatter case from first principles.

So the Zo IS a Majorana particle, which merges the templates of two antineutrinos say and SPININDUCES the Higgs-Antineutrino.
And where does this occur? It occurs at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring Boundary previously determined at the 2.776x10-18 meter marker.
This marker so specifies the Zo Boson energy level explicitely as an upper boundary relative to the displacement scale set for the kernel at the wormhole radius rw=lw/2π and the classical electron radius as the limit for the nuclear interaction scale at 3 fermis in: RcomptonxAlpha.

So the particle masses of the standard model in QED and QCD become Compton-Masses, which are HIGGS-MASSINDUCED at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring (MIR) marker at RMIR=2.776x10-18 meters.

The Compton masses are directly obtained from E=hf=mc2=hc/λ and say as characteristic particle energies.
At the Leptonic-Outer-Ring or LOR; λLOR=2πRe and at the MIR λMIR=2πRMIR for characteristic energies of 71.38 GeV and 71.33 MeV respectively.

So we know that the Higgs-Mass-Induction occurs at those energy levels from the elementary template and as experimentally verified in terms of the neutrino masses by Super-Kamiokande in 1998.
The LOR-energy of course indicates the Muon mass as a 'heavy electron' and the MIR-energy indicates the associated 'heavy quark' mass.

This has been described before in the general mass induction scales for the diquarks as consequence from the bosonic bifurcation of string masses (XL-Boson string splits into quark- and lepton fermions as fundamental supersymmetry and the magnification of the Planck-scale).
We also know, that the elementary proto-nucleon seed mc has grown in a factor of Yn~(1.618034)n~1.72 for a present n=1.1324..to create the present nucleonmasses in a perturbation of its finestructure.
Subsequently, the MIR-energy of 71.38 GeV represents a Zo-Boson seed, which has similarly increased between a factor of √(Yn)~1.313 and Yn~1.724.

These values so give present boundary conditions for the Higgs Boson in terms of its Zo coupling as the interval {93.73-123.09} GeV* or {93.50-122.79} GeV. The latter interval reduces by 1.58% to {92.02-120.85} GeV, as we have used the 'effective electron mass' me, differing in that percentage from the bare electron's restmass in our calculations.
The lower bounded HB so manifests in the form of the Zo and as the majorana Higgs-Induction and coupled to the Spin-Induction of the Scalar Higgs Antineutrino.
As described previously; the Zo-Boson mass is the mean of the top-quark K-Mean as 91.380 GeV* = 91.155 GeV and so relates the quark energy levels to the Higgs inductions for both spin and inertia. This occurs at the down-strange ds-diquark level of the cosmogenesis.

The W-Boson masses are the summation of the quark K-Means and represents the summation of all lower diquark energy levels from doubleup to doubledown.
As the down-strange or MIR-LOR energy level is coupled as a Kernel-MIR level in the bottom-antibottom mesonic diquark system, the energy difference between the Zo- and the W-bosons should amount to that b-quark energy of about 10 GeV and which indeed is experimentally verified as such.
Finally the doublestrange diquark level then becomes the well known Fermi-Energy of the Superquark K-Mean at 298.453 GeV*=297.717 GeV and which reduces to 293.013 GeV in the 1.58% in the SI mensuration system for an Fermi energy of 1.165x10-5 1/GeV2.

Quantum Relativity then stipulates, that the Higgs-Mass-Induction energies will assume particular energy value related to the diquark mass induction table of the K-Means, coupled to the weakon masses as indicated.
The overarching energy level is however that at 92 GeV as the lower bound and as represented in the definition of the Zo-Boson as a Majorana Spininduced scalar Higgs boson. The upper bound is the Fermi energy of the Super-Diquark as a doublestrange.
This 92 GeV level represents a seedling energy of 71.38 GeV from the primordial universe and when the XL-Boson aka the heterotic string class HO(32) decayed into a fermionic quark-lepton bifurcation and which today is represented in the diquark eigenstates of the standard model in particle physics through its Unitary Symmetries.