Recent content by marce

Really !?

I would like to avoid going that path , and stay focused on a specific topic.

Actually that confirms my question , but let's not dig into talk-at-the-bar (indeed)

Indeed : ref https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2022/12/neutrino_dark_matter.html >... >In Turok’s theory all the neutrinos have Majorana masses, described by a mass matrix. To make the heaviest right-handed neutrino stable, a bunch of matrix entries must vanish—and this makes the lightest...

No my question was : why did the weak force need such a nearly none-existing particle ?

>...Huh? Name one massless property of neutrinos. - I thought the lightest one was massless >..."why are electrons needed?" or this one "why are quarks needed?" Well the question arises from : why the weak interaction needed this so small correction and can it be modeled theoretically M.

- One of the most fascinating particles for me , have always been neutrino's because of them balancing between mass and massless properties. So the question 'why was this needed' in the context of the weak force has led me to the question : as with attempts to explain 3 generations of particles...

>imbalance we see now Yes, but my argument was that there's no need to have balanced initial setup in the first place >dark-energy A bit beside the point; I mean with my limited knowledge ;dark-energy 'still' contributes to the energy-amount of the universe. In that sense I consider it to be...

- I never quite understood , while people generally believe they must search for the reason of matter, anti-matter unbalance. I mean the big-bang was a violation of the energy conservation law. As far as I understand in the first moment there was only energy which later condensed into matter and...

Math is only a tool, it has bound us to certain visions and makes it very difficult to discover new ideas nowadays. In my review on Joseph Conlon's book 'why string theory' I wrote (amongst other ittems ): My major objection lies in the observation that with string theory, perhaps...

Ok, but what does it hint to us : perhaps that that vibrating modes aren't classical spatial dimensions , as we know them, but that an oscillation happens within 'other topologies' ? M

- As far as looking to gravity as a force ; nature may respond to us with 'guys : why do you insist on calling everything a force' ? Of course it can't be 'denied' but it is 'human-centric' and lays deeply within us and comes from our experience on which we interact with the world. And...

Ok, but topology of the extra dimensions could be restricted; or have special properties; hence the mass ranges become restricted too.

- Does anyone know , why for instance a muon or a tau , can't be considered as Kaluza-Klein tower(s) ? M.

- As some of you aleady pointed out; there is a big pitfall of assigning infinity to the universe(possibly); infinity is a mathematical concept and does not exist in nature. This may seem childish but it isnt't; if the universe corresponds to a physical version of inifinity I would call it...