C, P, and T of Braid Excitations in Quantum Gravity (Song He, Yidun Wan)

[Coin]

Still reading this stuff, but what I am very curious about is how and whether this work connects with the April 1 braid matter paper. Both use braids within framed spin networks to represent particles; as far as I can tell the only difference is that this uses 4-valent spin networks whereas the April 1 paper (I think) used trivalent.

The thing that is interesting to me is that both papers manage to produce graph transformations corresponding to the C, P and T particle transformations. I am very curious whether the transformations that correspond to CPT in each model are in any way analogous or contradictory. (I am assuming here that it is possible to meaningfully compare 3-valent and 4-valent braid models at all...)

Also, a tiny mystery: The new paper was submitted to the Arxiv 9 May 2008, but in its text it is dated February 15, 2008? Ah well.

 

[pelastration]

Now, why do all the electrons in my brain agree to let me think my thoughts in private? What does it mean for an electron to agree to anything (from my point of view)?

Kea, are electrons in your opinion gravitationally clustered in your system?
IMO, attraction - the only real everlasting principle - should be included in each analysis.

dirk

 

[marcus]

Still reading this stuff, but what I am very curious about is how and whether this work connects with the April 1 braid matter paper. Both use braids within framed spin networks to represent particles; as far as I can tell the only difference is that this uses 4-valent spin networks whereas the April 1 paper (I think) used trivalent.
...

Coin, I can just give you my intuitive feeling about this. I think that the April paper you cite basically tells us (reading between the lines) that the trivalent program is not working out.
We had to wait a long time for it, and there was a point in the paper where they waved their hands.

I guess it is irresponsible for me as a rank non-expert to tell you my hunch. But it looks to me like 4-valent is very different from trivalent. Yidun Wan does not have to assume the existence of some extra unspecified transformations to make things work. Step by step he is deriving everything he needs. He shows you everything. there is very little conjecture.

It may be fated to run into a brick wall, eventually, but it will do so in a completely honest and explicitly inevitable way. He is driving towards detailed logical conclusions.

Another signpost is that Smolin and Wan have a paper in preparation. As if Smolin had tried out trivalent with the other people and has now shifted some interest over to 4-valent and is working some with Wan.

I could be wrong (I'm wrong in my expectations a lot) but the way I see it you can almost just forget about trivalent. You are welcome to remind me of this foolhardy remark if a splendid paper about trivalent braid matter comes out next month

 

[Kea]

Anyhow, thanks for the conversation...

No, thank you for your interest, Careful. Of course, I try to write and publish stuff, but I'm a terrible writer and it is hard to find people (referees) who actually make an effort to read it. As you say, they think it's all just crazy.

 

[Kea]

By the way, what do y'all think of Song He and Yidun Wan's recent papers?

To be honest, Marcus, I haven't looked at the latest paper yet. My opinion on this is pretty simple: Bilson-Thompson's idea was important, and three and four valent braids/ribbons are fundamental representations of particles ... but spin foam physics will never explain how.

 

[Careful]

No, thank you for your interest, Careful. Of course, I try to write and publish stuff, but I'm a terrible writer and it is hard to find people (referees) who actually make an effort to read it. As you say, they think it's all just crazy.

Well, as long as you know exactly what you want, it is always possible to write a mathematically consistent paper (at least then we know it is clever craziness :-) ) and math journals are much more tolerant towards limited exotism if at least the formal part of it is interesting and well written. For example Connes has published all his NCG ideas in math journals until recently when it became crystal clear it had something to do with physics :-)

 

[Kea]

Let's not get off topic. I just saw a very nice PI lecture on American Pragmatism by the philosopher Misak, including questions and comments by Smolin, Lisi, Harvey Brown, Lucien Hardy, Chris Fuchs and others. Available at:

http://pirsa.org/08050041/

It might help explain our superquantum point of view on gravity. Note the comment at the end regarding the distributive law and the possibility of giving up classical logic in theory.