Nothing? (Beyond the Standard Model)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of theoretical frameworks beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, particularly focusing on knot theory and its potential implications for understanding fundamental particles and forces. Participants examine various models and ideas, including the work of Sze Kui Ng and the historical context of knot theory in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention the ongoing search for new physics at the LHC and caution against prematurely concluding that it won't find evidence for the Higgs boson or supersymmetry (SUSY).
  • One participant highlights the historical significance of knot theory in physics, referencing its use in vortex theory and suggesting that caution is warranted due to its mythological associations.
  • There is a sentiment that human creativity in mathematical modeling may exceed nature's current manifestations, with a hope for a future paradigm shift in understanding.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the direction of theoretical physics, questioning the focus on grand unification theories and suggesting that nature may be simpler than current models imply.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of funding for alternative research and the perceived stagnation in progress within the field.
  • Participants discuss the potential of geometry and topology to explain aspects of the universe's history, despite the challenges posed by modern abstractions in physics.
  • There is mention of Ken Ono's work on partition numbers, with a belief that it may significantly engage mathematical physicists in future discussions.
  • A correction is made regarding the reference to a specific article that includes particle mass calculations, clarifying the correct arXiv identifier.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the validity and potential of knot theory and other models beyond the Standard Model. There is no clear consensus, with some advocating for the exploration of these ideas while others remain skeptical about their practical applicability.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the implications of knot theory and other theoretical frameworks, as well as the historical context that influences current perspectives.

sneutron
Messages
14
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
Hi, Arivero! Does that mean "don't go there?" :smile: 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:
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.
 
sneutron said:
explicit particle mass calculations

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

Similar threads

Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Graduate Strand Model Published: Physics of Particles & Nuclei 50 (2019)
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
11K
Undergrad What are the Priority Tasks for High Energy Physics Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Supertrace Sum Rule and Fermi Constant in Electroweak Standard Model
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate Has This Mysterious Mathematical Group Been Identified in Physics Research?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Graduate Does Peter Woit's solution of Higgs' naturalness problem work?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Implications of a new 17 Mev vector boson on Higgs, SUSY
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
11K
Graduate What is the Fascination with Physics Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate LQG and Princeton's institute for Advanced Study
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K