# A Atiyah's arithmetic physics

1. Sep 27, 2018

### lpetrich

I'm pleasantly surprised at how well the neutrino mass and mixing parameters are now known.

I also neglected to note the error of the quarks' CP-violating phase. it is about 0.05 radians.

The data for the CKM matrix (from review at pdg.lbl.gov): |Vud| = 0.94720 +- 0.00021, |Vus| = 0.2243 +- 0.0005, |Vcd| = 0.218 +- 0.004, |Vcs| = 0.997 +- 0.017, |Vcb| = (42.2 +- 0.8)*10^(-3), |Vub| = (3.94 +- 0.36)*10^(-3), |Vtd| = (8.1 +- 0.5)*10^(-3), |Vts| = (39.4 +- 2.3)*10^(-3), |Vtb| = 1.019 +- 0.025

The matrix's errors range from 0.00021 to 0.025 (absolute) and 0.00021 to 0.09 (relative) -- very good.

So there is a lot for BSM theories to try to predict.

2. Sep 28, 2018

### Auto-Didact

This approach should not just give the electromagnetic coupling constant, but all possible coupling constants including Newton's constant.

It is also claimed that the precision of the numbers can be given to arbitrarily high precision. It seems that no one so far has actually been able to reproduce an explicit numerical calculation of the function, let alone evaluate it for $\pi$.

3. Sep 29, 2018

### lpetrich

To compare to GUT predictions, one has to extrapolate Standard-Model parameters to above the energy scale where electroweak symmetry breaking happens. That energy scale is roughly the Higgs particle's vacuum expectation value, 246 GeV, and for definiteness, we may use that value.

The most precise input available for the Standard Model's numerical values is the fine-structure constant, but it is measured at essentially zero momentum transfer. To get up to the EWSB energy scale requires renormalization, and to lowest order, that is by calculating one-loop corrections to the photon propagator -- a photon turns into two charged particles, which then turn back into a photon again. This can be done precisely for charged leptons, but quarks are another story. It is difficult to do the calculations at color-confinement energy scales, because quarks' interactions turn superstrong there. I recall from somewhere that one has to do the expedient of using measurements of the rate of e+e- -> hadrons as inputs. But once one gets far enough above that energy scale, quarks can be treated as almost free particles. For color-confinement-scale calculations with a precision of 0.1 - 0.01, this means that renormalizing the FSC up to EWSB energy scales will only have a precision of 10^(-3) - 10^(-4) (1000 to 100 ppm). Renormalizing the low-energy weak-interaction rate may have similar precision. This is fairly close to how well we know the W and Z masses, and those masses don't need renormalization through the color-confinement energy scale. So we have five quantities that are mainly determined by three Standard-Model ones, the two electroweak gauge-coupling constants and the Higgs vev. This gives us consistency checks for the Standard Model, or alternately, a way of measuring BSM effects.

Electron masses are better, since hadronic effects set in at the two-loop level, making them 10^(-5) - 10^(-6) (10 to 1 ppm). Muon and tau masses are also good in this way, though the tau's mass error is larger than that. Quark masses are more difficult, though the top quark's mass is known to within about 0.2%.

So in summary, several parameters of the unbroken Standard Model are known to 1% or better.

4. Sep 29, 2018

### Auto-Didact

The method of calculation used by Atiyah is claimed to supersede the entire Feynman diagram loop correction scheme, it is instead based on a much more general mathematical version of renormalization than used in QED and other QFTs.

The form of renormalization Atiyah opts for is an algebraic renormalization scheme involving infinitely iterated complex exponentials, giving a much higher convergence speed in the calculation.

He cooked up this particular numerical scheme based on an analogy of how Euler significantly improved upon the convergence speed towards obtaining the digits of $\pi$ using $n^2$ opposed to Archimedes' classical equation $\pi(n)=n{\frac {\sin 180°} n}$ with the convergence speed scaling with $n$.

In other words, Atiyah's scheme isn't merely another way of doing renormalization, it is a completely new branch of physics, predicting among other things all coupling constants at all possible energy scales in physics. This is of course given anyone can actually reproduce his numerics.

5. Sep 29, 2018

### mitchell porter

Even if they did, it would all only be numerology. There is nothing in the paper like an equation of motion, let alone one employing Atiyah's new constant. No alternative method of calculating anything physical is provided.

His idea seems to be: the forces correspond to an algebraic hierarchy (levels I through III), the coupling constants are mathematical constants that appear at the different levels, and exactly how this comes together as physics will be figured out later.

The most positive thing I can say, is that this is a lesson in imagination and in thinking big. The idea that the various couplings will arise as "the noncommutative counterpart of pi" or "the nonassociative counterpart of pi", in the context of a novel algebraic ordering of the fundamental forces, is visionary and systematic. One should hope for and aim for ideas so striking and clear. Nonetheless, this particular idea also seems to be completely wrong.

6. Sep 29, 2018

### Auto-Didact

Its good to see that you are skeptical, I am as well. Having said that I am also a bit more optimistic, or - more correctly stated - more excited; there is a larger theme surrounding the ideas which most people seem to not have picked up on yet.

Quite honestly it's been quite a long while, that I was actually this excited about some mathematical method. The nice thing about Atiyah's equations is that they both tie in quite nicely with some already existing proposals in theoretical physics as well as imply some new things about old theories.

I myself am also trying to reproduce all of his numerics; it may be a wild goose chase but what is there to lose? If it works, this will be the first real progress in theoretical physics in 40 years, and if it doesn't we'll have learned some new potentially useful rapid convergence computational techniques.

I would love to be much more specific about what it is I'm exactly on about, but I don't wanna jump the gun. Needless to say I'd prefer to have the competition for potential new discoveries in theoretical physics based on this remain at a bare minimum as well

7. Sep 30, 2018

### lpetrich

Something like Series acceleration - Wikipedia? Or Nima Arkani-Hamed's amplituhedron?

If he had some construction that is mathematically equivalent to evaluating several Feynman diagrams together, that would be very valuable. Even if it was for some simplified theory, like a pure gauge theory. But getting the value of the fine structure constant requires the full complexity of the Standard Model and whatever GUT produces it.

8. Sep 30, 2018

### Auto-Didact

Yes, the method is exactly a form of nonlinear series acceleration and at the same time something new like the amplituhedron.

Like the amplituhedron, it is fully constructed in terms of algebraic geometry and complex manifolds, but unlike the amplituhedron, the specific mapping also seems to serve as a bridge directly connecting number theory to analysis through among other things the Riemann zeta function.
The connection to (SM) physics comes in through von Neumann algebras, more specifically the (hyperfinite) factors therein.

Last edited: Sep 30, 2018
9. Oct 4, 2018

### John G

The use of von Neumann hyperfinite factors/Bott periodicity and conformal/complex structures sounds like Tony Smith's idea for linking Armand Wyler's math for the fine structure constant to diffusion equations in an 8-dim Kaluza Klein spacetime.

10. Oct 8, 2018

### ohwilleke

That boat sailed long before you were born.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted