- #71
Kea
- 859
- 0
Goodness, this is so distracting. I must go for a walk. It feels like being trapped inside an artist's impression of a Bohr atom, like one of those nauseating joy rides.
Kea said:This means we can plug it into the Koide formula
Hmmm...
arivero said:How happens a thread on Sundance gets Koide inserted along ?
marcus said:As with the wild parrot, this happens inevitably and although it may cause dismay, is not a proper subject for complaint.
I should mention what all this has to do with Higgs-free lepton masses.
Consider the Feynman diagrams (in the momentum representation) where each vertex has only two propagators, a massless electron propagator coming in, and a massless electron propagator coming out, and a vertex value of [itex]m_{e}[/itex] is being generated. When you add up this set of diagrams, the result is just the usual propagator for the electron with mass. Feynman's comment on this, (a footnote in his book, "QED: The strange theory of matter and light"), is that "nobody knows what this means". Well the reason that no one knows what it means is because these vertices can't be derived from a Lorentz symmetric Lagrangian.
But what the above comment does show is that it is possible to remove the Higgs from the standard model (along with all those parameters that go with it), if you are willing to assume Feynman diagrams that don't come from energy conservation principles.
As I understand it, you think more in terms of category and topos theory. I wonder if there is a connection between this and knot theory in that these knots are defined on 3D support manifolds whose union and intersection relate to operator algebra with the use of knot theory.Kea said:Firstly, the name algebraic QFT is the subject of Schroer et al (talked about recently here and on NotEvenWrong). Although they do admire knots and CFT and such things, there is still a vast gulf between this way of thinking and the way of thinking of which I am thinking. It really is a matter of there being an awful lot of things that need sorting out before different approaches can be linked (excuse the pun).
But this is all OT. Sorry, Mike.
Mike2 said:As I understand it, you think more in terms of category and topos theory. I wonder if there is a connection between this and knot theory in that these knots are defined on 3D support manifolds whose union and intersection relate to operator algebra with the use of knot theory.
I'm guessing here, but it sounds like the intertwining of these "knots" is not a differential feature, but is a description of something global. So it sounds like they are defining the union and intersection of sets in terms of something global and not in terms of elements of the underlying sets. This sounds like background independent set theory, independent of the background of underlying elements. Does this sound correct? If this backgound independent set theory is the basis of category/topos theory, then how can you deny the relevance of knot theory to all these different efforts when you do acknowledge the use of category theory for the same goal? Thanks.Kea said:Yes, Mike. This is well known.Mike2 said:As I understand it, you think more in terms of category and topos theory. I wonder if there is a connection between this and knot theory in that these knots are defined on 3D support manifolds whose union and intersection relate to operator algebra with the use of knot theory.
Yeah I have (and you ). It was only the "today" remark that drove me to think I was missing something. BTW, in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=908909&postcount=171 I remarked that the only published note I am aware about mass logarithms isKea said:Of course, in the real world the mass ratios are not equal. But, arivero, you have discussed quantum-group like mass logarithms yourself over on the thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46055&page=8
garrett said:Does this mean we could start with our favorite semisimple Lie group, SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), in a chosen representation and translate it directly to something (exactly?) like Sundance's tangling-ribbon model?
CarlB said:...you're really going to like my freshly minted paper extending Koide's mass formula to the neutrinos:
http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf
here we have group-brain and group-mouth, so no one is responsible to say anythinglqg said:I guess I should keep my mouth shut in this thread.
lqg said:By the way, since Lee never stepped in this forum, I gave him the link today. I wish he would take a few minutes to come by and say something here, not just in this thread. He knows everything I have done on the project and surely much more than that.
CarlB said:There's a paper by the Cambridge geometric algebraists showing a relation between twistors and algebra...