## followup to Yablon's "Prediction of Lepton masses"

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>&gt;whopkins@csd.uwm.edu wrote in message\n\n&gt;&gt; sounds suspiciously familiar from the point of view of the Connes-Lott\n&gt;&gt; rendition in non-commutative geometry of the Standard Model, and might\n&gt;&gt; tie in to all of that.\n\n&gt;Connes-Lott model works equally for any number of generations &gt;1, and\n&gt;it does not predict differences between. To me it is a desired\n&gt;development in Connes models.\n\nI am told that the restriction n_g&gt;1 appears only in the primitive\nConnes-Lott model. Coquereaux et al models never had such restriction,\nand it seems it can be avoided also in the "Spectral Action" models.\n\n&gt;Now, in geometry, we use distance, ie, inverse of mass. So I can not\n&gt;see an easy meaning to the addition of three masses, ie three inverses\n&gt;of distance.\n\nI should expand on this statement. While it is true *I* can not\nsee an easy meaning to the trace of the mass matrix, it is true that,\nas Whopkings told, the mass matrix square *and its trace* was heavily used\nin the first implementations of the standard model in non\ncommutative geometry. See for instance\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9501142 sect. 3\nand references therein (and check also works from Coquereaux during\n1990-1993 period)\n\n\n\n&gt;The most promising formula in Yablon conumdrum is the relationship\n&gt;between vaccum expected value of the Higgs field and mass of the\n&gt;smallest distance, ie mass of the tau lepton.\n\nOf course if one enters quarks, the smallest distance comes from the\nmass of the top quark. This neglect of the tau in favour of the\ntop is probably the cause, for the standard literature, of not noticing\nthe empirical relationship alpha*&lt;Vew&gt;=m_tau\n\n\nAlejandro\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>>whopkins@csd.uwm.edu wrote in message

>> sounds suspiciously familiar from the point of view of the Connes-Lott
>> rendition in non-commutative geometry of the Standard Model, and might
>> tie in to all of that.

>Connes-Lott model works equally for any number of generations >1, and
>it does not predict differences between. To me it is a desired
>development in Connes models.

I am told that the restriction $n_g>1$ appears only in the primitive
Connes-Lott model. Coquereaux et al models never had such restriction,
and it seems it can be avoided also in the "Spectral Action" models.

>Now, in geometry, we use distance, ie, inverse of mass. So I can not
>see an easy meaning to the addition of three masses, ie three inverses
>of distance.

I should expand on this statement. While it is true *I* can not
see an easy meaning to the trace of the mass matrix, it is true that,
as Whopkings told, the mass matrix square $*and$ its trace* was heavily used
in the first implementations of the standard model in non
commutative geometry. See for instance
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxi...hep-th/9501142 sect. 3
and references therein (and check also works from Coquereaux during
$1990-1993$ period)

>The most promising formula in Yablon conumdrum is the relationship
>between vaccum expected value of the Higgs field and mass of the
>smallest distance, ie mass of the $\tau$ lepton.

Of course if one enters quarks, the smallest distance comes from the
mass of the top quark. This neglect of the $\tau$ in favour of the
top is probably the cause, for the standard literature, of not noticing
the empirical relationship $\alpha*<Vew>=m_{tau}$

Alejandro

 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Iron-platinum alloys could be new-generation hard drives>> Lab sets a new record for creating heralded photons>> Breakthrough calls time on bootleg booze