Electro Weak Unification Theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Electro Weak relationship, particularly focusing on the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam Electroweak theory. Participants explore the distinction between the philosophical implications and the mathematical framework of the theory, as well as the nature of the Weinberg mixing angle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant, Jim, expresses a curiosity about the Electro Weak relationship and differentiates between mechanism and mathematics, indicating a stronger grasp of the former.
  • Another participant asserts that mathematics constitutes the essence of physics, suggesting that verbal descriptions are inherently limited.
  • A third participant agrees with the notion that mathematics serves as a language, highlighting the challenges of translation between mathematical expressions and verbal explanations.
  • A later reply discusses the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam Electroweak theory, suggesting that the similarities between electromagnetic and weak interactions do not imply a deep philosophical foundation. It notes that the Weinberg mixing angle is treated as a free parameter in the standard model, and questions the necessity of philosophical reasoning in this context.
  • This participant also posits that if the Weinberg angle were to be zero, it would not necessarily invalidate established theories, indicating a phenomenological aspect to the electroweak theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between mathematics and physics, with some emphasizing the primacy of mathematical formulations while others focus on the philosophical implications. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the necessity of philosophical reasoning in the context of the Electroweak theory.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of the Weinberg mixing angle being zero and its relationship to the broader framework of unification theories. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the role of mathematics versus philosophy in understanding the Electroweak theory.

Jimmy D
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello all,
I'm curious about Electro Weak relationship.
I differentiate between mechanism and mathematics, with the equilibrium falling heavily to the left.
Good with the former, weaker with the latter.
Anybody aware of relevant philosophy/findings?
Thanks much.
Jim
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The mathematics is the physics. Descriptions in words are always just attempts to describe the formulas, and they are never very accurate.
 
Understood.
I've always considered math to be a language. Translation can be difficult.
 
For the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam Electroweak theory, I do not think there is any deep philosophical reason behind. Basically, electromagnetic interaction and weak have certain similarities (in particular the photon and the Z boson), and it is assumed that this similarity has certain underlying relationship with one or more parameter (it is the Weinberg mixing angle between the more fundamental B and W3 fields).

This parameter is measured to be none zero. However, I do not think being zero would break any established theory, at least in the standard model regime (in which Weinberg angle is a free parameter). Therefore GWS electroweak is to some extent phenomenological. If you are looking for 'philosophical' reasons, you might need more sophisticated unification theories in which the Weinberg mixing angle is a derived constant instead of a free parameter.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K