Nothing? (Beyond the Standard Model)

In summary, Sze Kui Ng has been working on a model that uses knots to explain the Standard Model. Ed Witten, a well-known physicist, is following up on Ng's work. It is premature to conclude that the LHC won't find the Higgs or SUSY.
  • #1
sneutron
14
0
It's a bit premature to conclude the LHC won't find Higgs or SUSY but...

There are a few ideas kicking around that use knots (braids, strings, strands, knotted dimesnsions or whatever) to "explain" the Standard Model. One that catches the eye for its explicit particle mass calculations is "Quantum Knots and New Quantum Field Theory" by Sze Kui Ng (arXiv:math/0004151v3).

Our Mr Ng has been working on this since about 2000, during which time a lot of progress has been made in understanding knot invariants. Now and again big-name physicists follow Kelvin's precedent and take another look at knots.

The latest is Ed Witten, so maybe we should sit up and listen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
sneutron, knots have a powerful history, and mythology, in its use for fundamental physics. Vortex theory, for instance. This history makes people to be cautious about them.
 
  • #3
So far man's ingenuity in devising mathematical models seems to have outstripped nature's
propensity for creation...at least in this universe. Who knows when or if a new insight will
trigger a paradigm change...seems like its about time.
 
  • #4
Hi, Arivero! Does that mean "don't go there?" :rofl: Wouldn't you say knot theory is (at last) coming of age?

Progress in Physics and Maths seems to be less of a march, more a drunken stagger. It's scary to speculate how much current activity will be seen in 100 years' time as fumbling in a blind alley. It's not polite or even sensible to knock String Theory, especially in the light of so many "miraculous" results. Still...

For over 30 years the "obvious" way forward has been grander and grander unification, but I'm beginning to wonder if Nature is having a laugh at our expense. "Mmm, F4, E6, E8, monster, that'll keep 'em busy for decades. Now let's make it so simple, they'll wonder how they ever managed to miss it".

That isn't very funny, of course. All those man-years betting on one horse, a funding desert for alternative research, the pathetic CERN news channel. Shouldn't we just turn off the tap and go turkey in the hope of coming to our senses again? :devil:

Like many others I've tried to compensate for lack of brain and postgrad to handle the modern abstractions by spending time in a dream world of models. Completely unproductive, despite 30 years of obsession with knots. :cry:

But i was never discouraged because most of Physics plays out far from Planck energies (even if a bit fuzzily). Why shouldn't geometry-topology be able to explain most of the history of the universe?

Of course, ahem, always keep an open mind. What did you think of Ken Ono's bombshell on partition numbers? Got a feeling that's going to keep a lot of mathematical physicists very busy for a long time to come!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Naty1 said:
So far man's ingenuity in devising mathematical models seems to have outstripped nature's propensity for creation...at least in this universe.

Hi, Naty1, good topic for another debate! See also my 2nd post. I'm inclined to think the string theorists haven't actually delivered (yet) on coherent models, though the range of their potential models is absolutely breath-taking.
 
  • #6
sneutron said:
explicit particle mass calculations

Sorry, the article with those (hadron) calculations is actually arXiv:hep-ph/0208098v1.
 

1. What is "nothing" in the context of the Standard Model?

The term "nothing" in the context of the Standard Model refers to the absence of particles and interactions, also known as vacuum state. This state is not truly empty, as it still contains energy and quantum fluctuations.

2. Is the concept of "nothing" well-defined in the Standard Model?

No, the concept of "nothing" is not well-defined in the Standard Model. The theory does not have a clear definition of what constitutes "nothing" and how it behaves, leading to ongoing debates and research in the field.

3. How does the concept of "nothing" relate to the search for new physics beyond the Standard Model?

The concept of "nothing" is closely related to the search for new physics beyond the Standard Model. Many theories, such as string theory and supersymmetry, propose the existence of additional particles and interactions that could help explain the mysteries of "nothing" in the Standard Model.

4. Can the existence of "nothing" be experimentally tested?

Yes, the existence of "nothing" can be indirectly tested through experiments that study the behavior of particles and interactions at extreme conditions, such as high energies or temperatures. These experiments can provide insights into the structure and properties of "nothing."

5. What implications does the concept of "nothing" have for our understanding of the universe?

The concept of "nothing" has significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It suggests that the vacuum state is not truly empty but is instead a dynamic and complex system that plays a crucial role in the behavior of particles and interactions. This challenges our traditional notions of emptiness and highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Similar threads

I What are the Priority Tasks for High Energy Physics Beyond the Standard Model?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
Supertrace Sum Rule and Fermi Constant in Electroweak Standard Model
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
3K
What is the current status of particle physics beyond the standard model?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
LQG and Princeton's institute for Advanced Study
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
What is the Fascination with Physics Beyond the Standard Model?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Guiding principles from the great physicists to take us beyond the standard model
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
Dax discussions of Beyond SM theories/including newcomer questions
    • Beyond the Standard Models
5
Replies
174
Views
18K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 261)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 246)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top