Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Cause Of Dimensions Being Curled Up And Its Universality

  1. Nov 26, 2006 #1
    [Moderator's note: The newsgroup is not endorsing theories posted here. LM]

    For more background and related topics, please refer to my website:

    A plausible cause of curled up dimensions is proposed. The solid angle
    rotation behaves like that in curled up dimensions, it actually is an
    unrecognized aspect of the external spacetime. While it is not derived
    from strings, it may possess string properties. There is an inherent
    solid angle SO(6) associated with the Lorentz spacetime. (SO(10) with
    a 4+1 spacetime.) Since these dimensions are intimately associated
    with external spacetime, it answers why the same curled up dimensions
    exist everywhere in the universe. This could be another revolution of
    string theory, as it may establish a link between strings and the
    external spacetime and escalates observations to the electroweak scale.

    I. Introduction

    Every semi-simple Lie algebra, say so(3), has a Casimir invariant, I =
    J12 + J22 + J32 = constant. The form of this equation suggests a
    brand new SO(3) symmetry. Discussion is made for the properties of
    this new rotation (which may be called solid, or 3-d, angle rotation),
    the reason it is overlooked and why it should account for the cause of
    particle spectrum (e.g. iso-spin, strangeness, etc.). As it behaves
    like strings, it could be the cause of the curled up dimensions. But
    it escalates observations to electroweak scale and is economically
    embedded in Lorentz (or 4+1) spacetime. It also explains parity
    violation naturally. Requirements of simplicity, obviousness and
    universality of the ultimate building blocks also point to these
    symmetries associated with the external spacetime. Likewise, there
    should be 4-d (and 5-d for 4+1 spacetime) angle rotations (without
    which Poincare group is incomplete).

    II. Mathematical Inevitability Of Higher Dimensional Rotation Symmetry

    When internal symmetry was explored, it was believed external
    symmetries were completely exhausted. What is unexpected is there may
    be a series of overlooked external symmetries yet to be discovered.
    We’ll start from some quick mathematical investigations, then look
    into the physics behind. Let’s start from a 3-space where a length
    is invariant under any rotation,

    L^2 = x1^2 + x2^2 + x3^2 (2.1)

    An SO(3) symmetry results with infinitesimal rotation operators

    J1 = x2(∂/∂x3) – x3(∂/∂x2)
    J2 = x3(∂/∂x1) – x1(∂/∂x3)
    J3 = x1(∂/∂x2) - x2(∂/∂x1)

    As well known every semi-simple Lie algebra has a Casimir invariant

    I = Σ gμν J^μ J^ν = constant (2.3)

    The Casimir invariant for the so(3) of 3-space is its angular momentum

    I = Σ gμν Jμ Jν = J1^2 + J2^2 + J3^2 = J^2= constant (2.4)

    Equation (2.4) has the same form as equation (2.1) and hence should
    generate a new SO(3) symmetry. It is the main topic of this paper to
    examine the properties of this rotation (which may be called solid
    angle rotation, as to be explained later), the reason it’s overlooked
    and why it should account for the cause of particle spectrum, e.g.
    iso-spin, strangeness, etc.

    Upon realization of the new SO(3) symmetry, the infinitesimal rotation
    operators would be written as

    W1 = J2(∂/∂J3) – J3(∂/∂J2) (2.5a)
    W2 = J3(∂/∂J1) – J1(∂/∂J3) (2.5b)
    W3 = J1(∂/∂J2) – J2(∂/∂J1) (2.5c)

    The eigenvalues of the infinitesimal operators J are the angular
    momenta jij

    J1 φ = [y(∂/∂z) - z(∂/∂y) ] exp[-i(tpt - xpx – ypy –
    zpz)] = i(ypz – zpy )φ = i jyz φ (2.6a)
    J2 φ = [z(∂/∂x) - x(∂/∂z) ] exp[-i(tpt - xpx – ypy –
    zpz)] = i(zpx – xpz )φ = i jzx φ (2.6b)
    J3 φ = [x(∂/∂y) - y(∂/∂x) ] exp[-i(tpt - xpx – ypy –
    zpz)] = i(xpy – ypx )φ = i jxy φ (2.6c)

    where the wave function

    φ = exp[-i(pt t - px x – py y – pz z) ]

    is the solution to the wave equation

    [ ∂^2/(∂t)^2 - ∂^2/(∂x)^2 - ∂^2/(∂y)^2 - ∂^2/(∂z)^2 –
    m^2 ] φ = 0 (2.8)

    In the same manner, the eigenvalues of the infinitesimal operators W
    would be

    W1 λ = [θzx (∂/∂θxy ) – θxy (∂/∂θzx ) ] exp[-i(jxy θxy
    + jyz θyz + jzx θzx)]
    = -i(θzx jxy – θxy jzx ) λ = i Ωzx,xy λ
    W2 λ = [θxy (∂/∂θyz ) - θyz (∂/∂θxy ) ] exp[-i(jxy θxy +
    jyz θyz + jzx θzx)]
    = -i(θxy jyz – θyz jxy ) λ = i Ωxy,yz λ
    W3 λ = [θyz (∂/∂θzx ) – θzx (∂/∂θyz ) ] exp[-i(jxy θxy
    + jyz θyz + jzx θzx)]
    = -i(θyz jzx – θzx jyz ) λ = i Ωyz,zx λ

    where the wave function

    λ = exp[-i(jxy θxy + jyz θyz + jzx θzx)]

    is the solution to the quantized wave equation of the Casimir
    invariants (2.4)

    [ ∂^2/(∂θyz)^2 + ∂^2/(∂θzx)^2 + ∂^2/(∂θxy)^2 – I^2 ]
    λ = 0 (2.11)

    Equation (2.11) has plane angles θij as its coordinates with angular
    momenta jij [in (2.10)] as its corresponding momenta. The eigenvalues
    Ωij,jk [in (2.9)] are solid angular momenta and the rotations Wi [in
    (2.5)] solid angle rotation. In other words, these equations treat
    plane angle scales as linear scales. For these to be valid all that is
    needed is the establishment of equivalency between the plane angle
    scales so that a rotation (or reshuffling of the 3 J’s in eq. (2.4))
    would not alter the total value of the Casimir invariant I.

    III. Physics Defining The Equivalency Between Plane Angle Scales

    Notice when one writes down the length invariant (2.1), what is not
    explicitly spelled out is that the linear scales x1 , x2 and x3 cannot
    be arbitrarily defined, but should be the spatial components of Lorentz
    scales (or something properly defined). An arbitrarily defined scales
    cannot ensure equivalency between the three linear scales x1 , x2 and
    x3 , thus a linear rod cannot be measured invariant after a rotation,
    light won’t be measured at the same speed in different directions and
    the SO(3) group cannot form. In other words, the validity of eq. (2.1)
    and the associated SO(3) is not unconditional but is based on the
    unsaid condition that the 3 linear scales be defined by the real
    physics of electromagnetism.

    For the same reason, the validity of the Casimir invariant, eq. (2.4),
    also is not unconditional but is based on an unsaid condition.
    Obviously, (2.4) cannot be valid for any arbitrarily defined plane
    angle scales. Then what is that condition? Or, what is the physical
    interaction based on which equivalency of plane angle scales for J1 ,
    J2 , J3 are defined? The interaction must exist in the form of (2.5),
    i.e. rotating between planes (like magnetic fields, Fμν = Aμ
    ∂/∂xν - Aν ∂/∂xμ , rotating between lines), to make the 3
    plane angle scales equivalent. We shall call this kind of rotation
    solid angle rotation (to be explained later). Note that solid angle
    rotation is not limited to semi-simple Lie algebras but should exist
    between any pair of planes which have equivalent plane angle scales.

    While that interaction is not identified, we know it exists because we
    know (2.4) is valid and equivalency of plane angle scales exists, and
    consequently the new SO(3) symmetry also exists in Nature. It is
    conjectured that this required interaction is just the classical
    version of weak interaction and the new SO(3) symmetry is related to

    IV. Solid Angle Rotation And Its Definition Through Plane Angle

    The reason we name the rotation between planes solid angle rotation is
    because conventional concept of solid angle is like a cone; its
    rotation is the shrinkage (or expansion) of the cone from a plane to a
    needle then back to the “same†plane. Though it does not rotate to
    a different plane, it is a rotation from plane to plane. That’s why
    we borrow the term solid angle rotation for the rotation between
    planes. However, one is free to call it 3-d rotation, or anything
    he/she likes. We shall call it solid angle rotation in this paper.

    There is an inherent impossibility of conserving both a finite plane
    angle arc and a linear vector length under solid angle rotation. It
    will be shown that this imperfection is reflected truthfully in
    observations. We shall define solid angle scale in such a way as to
    preserve only the plane angle arc in order to allow consistent
    comparison of plane angle scales on different planes (just like plane
    angle rotation preserving the length of a vector allows comparison of
    linear scales on different axes). Such kind of rotation does not, and
    is not intended to, preserve vector lengths. Nor is it intended to be
    represented and visualized in “Cartesian coordinatesâ€. The
    rotation can be thought of as a cone that does not shrink/expand but
    remains always as a plane-cone rotating from one (say x1-x2) plane to
    another (say x2-x3) plane and a solid angle rotation must exist between
    every pair of planes in the spacetime.

    Below defines solid angle by means of plane angle decomposition (into
    plane components). Such definition allows its rotation to leave
    invariant a plane angle arc (and hence angular momentum) in exact
    analogy to plane angle rotation leaving invariant the length of a
    vector. Let’s first express a line element in terms of spherical

    d = d1 e1 + d2 e2 + d3 e3
    = |d|sinψ cosθ e1 +|d|sinψ sinθ e2 +|d|cosψe3 (4.1)

    where the spherical angles are defined as

    ψ ≡ tan-1 [d2^2+ d1^2]^½/d3 (4.2a)
    θ ≡ tan-1 (d2/d1) (4.2b)

    The total length

    |d| = [(|d|sin ψ cos θ)^2 + (|d|sin ψ sin θ)^2 +
    (|d|cos ψ)^2 ]^½ = |d| (4.3)

    is independent, hence invariant under rotation of the spherical angles
    θ and ψ. SO(3) symmetry arises naturally from this invariance.
    In the same way, by treating angular momentum as a 3-vector, we can
    decompose an angular momentum into 3 components

    J = |J|sin ψ cos θ e1 +|J|sin ψ sin θ e2 + |J|cos
    ψ e3 (4.4)

    Obviously, if this decomposition can be done to angular momentum, it
    can also be done to any finite plane angle α,

    α = α1 e1 + α2 e2 + α3 e3
    = |α| sin ψ cos θ e1 +|α|sin ψsin θe2 +|
    α|cos ψe3 (4.5)

    Nevertheless, since α is actually not a 1-dimensional vector but an
    angle on a 2-dimensional plane, we would like to treat it exactly as an
    angle and consider (4.5) as the decomposition of a plane angle into 3
    2-dimensional “plane†components, rather than into 3 “vectorâ€
    components. Thus, we rewrite (4.5) in terms of 3 plane components,

    α= α23 ξ23 + α31 ξ31 + α12 ξ12 (4.6)

    where ξ’s are unit angles on each component plane. We then define
    solid angles, ω1 and ω2, in terms of the plane angle components in
    exact analogy to spherical angles defined in terms of line components:

    ω1 ≡ tan^-1 [α31^2 + α23^2]^½/ α12 (4.7a)
    ω2 ≡ tan^-1 (α31/ α23) (4.7b)

    Through solid angles ω1 and ω2, the finite plane angle α on an
    arbitrary plane can be decomposed into 3 plane components as

    α = α23 ξ23 + α31 ξ31 + α12 ξ12
    = | α|sin ω1 cos ω2 ξ23 + | α|sin ω1 sin ω2 ξ31 + |
    α|cos ω1 ξ 12 (4.8)

    The total plane angle

    | α | = [α23^2 + α31^2 + α12^2]^½
    = [(|α|sin ω1 cos ω2)^2 + (|α|sin ω1 sin ω2)^2 + (|α|cos
    ω1)^2 ]^½ = | α| (4.9)

    is independent of, thus invariant under arbitrary rotation of, solid
    angles ω1 and ω2.

    Though (4.8) is similar to (4.5), their meanings are quite different.
    Eq. (4.5) is the decomposition of a vector into 3 “linearâ€
    components and rotation of plane angles θand ψ preserves the
    length of the “vectorâ€. But (4.8) is the decomposition of a plane
    angle into 3 2-d “plane angle components†and rotation of solid
    angles ω1 and ω2 (which shuffles plane angle components α23,α31
    and α12) preserves the “total plane angleâ€. If they were for a
    4-dimensional space, (4.5) would cause an SO(4) symmetry, but (4.8) an
    SO(6). That they both cause the same SO(3) is incidental in
    3-dimensional space, which also hints at the two SO(3)s, one for spin
    and one for iso-spin. For Lorentz spacetime, there should be an SO(6)
    solid angle rotation symmetry (or its isomorphism) and for 4+1
    spacetime [1] an SO(10) (or its isomorphism).

    Thus, an extended polar coordinates should work like this: a point in a
    3-space can be identified by first identifying the plane on which it
    resides in terms of solid angles ω1 and ω2 , then the line on the
    plane by plane angle θ and lastly its position r on the line.

    V. Solid Angle Rotation As Cause Of Particle Spectrum

    Probably because of certain incorrect understanding, solid angle
    rotation was taken erroneously as “free standing†internal symmetry
    totally unrelated to external spacetime, when it should actually be
    external (or at least closely related to external spacetime).
    Currently, only symmetries under linear displacement (displacement of a
    0-d point) and plane angle rotation (displacement of a 1-d line) are
    recognized. I.e. only linear and angular momenta are recognized.
    However, a little sense of mathematics would dictate that solid angle
    rotation (or, displacement of a 2-d plane) is also an inherent part of
    the external spacetime and hence solid angular momentum should
    contribute equally to particle symmetries. There is no need to rush to
    the mysterious free standing internal symmetry unless solid angle
    rotation is proven prohibited. The only possibility that it might be
    forbidden (which is also the reason this new symmetry is overlooked) is
    that solid angle rotation may not preserve the length of a vector, e.g.
    linear momentum (even though it preserves a finite plane angle). But,
    this actually is not a problem because we also overlooked the fact that
    “only angular momentum, but not linear momentum, is concerned in
    particle classificationsâ€. On the other hand, in particle (weak)
    interactions where linear momentum must be conserved, solid angular
    momentum (i.e. the suspected iso-spin, strangeness, etc.) rightly fails
    to conserve. This shows observations agree exactly with mathematical

    The fact that solid angle rotation leaves total plane angular momentum
    invariant may have misled us to conclude that particle spectrum is
    “independent†of external spacetime and hence invented the (free
    standing) internal symmetry (which may be caused by the curled up
    dimensions under the string model). But not only the origin of the
    internal space is mysterious, it also cannot explain P-, C- and
    CP-violations. The virtue of solid angle rotation is that, “while it
    preserves total plane angular momentum it is external and shuffles the
    plane components of the plane angular momentum, thus causing
    parity-violationâ€. Another utterly important virtue of the rotation
    being external will be exemplified later.

    VI. String Behavior, Extended Polar Coordinates And 4- And 5-d Angle

    In Lorentz spacetime, there are 6 planes and hence a solid (3-d)
    angle rotation symmetry of 6-dimensional space. In the 4+1 spacetime
    which is more reasonable and natural [1], there are 10 planes, thus
    that of 10-space.

    Since what on each plane is “not a point†but a “circulatingâ€
    quantized wave of certain angular momentum, it would behave like a
    string. It is therefore conjectured that the curled up dimensions of
    string theory may actually be the plane angle scales of the solid angle
    rotation. In other words, the strings are circulating quantum
    mechanical waves confined to the 6 or 10 planes of the Lorentz or 4+1
    spacetime. This view is more plausible than plain strings because:

    1. It escalates the 10 dimensions of strings to observable
    2. It is highly economical as the 10 dimensions are embedded in a 4+1
    3. It reduces the complexity of strings drastically.

    Extended polar coordinates

    Just as plane (2-surface) can be decomposed into (or represented by)
    plane components, arbitrary 3-surface can be represented as a summation
    of 3-surface components and arbitrary 4-surface summation of 4-surface
    components. Thus, as if it were an extended polar coordinates, a point
    in a 4+1 spacetime can be identified by: first identifying the
    4-surface the point is on (in terms of its 4-surface components), then
    the 3-surface in the 4-surface, then the plane (2-surface) in the
    3-surface, then the line (1-surface) on the plane (2-surface), lastly
    the position of the point on the line. From symmetry’s point of
    view, this would be the more proper way to identify a point than
    through Cartesian coordinates. Thus, particle spectrum is but a
    representation of the full symmetries of the “external†4+1
    spacetime, in the same way photon is to the Lorentz spacetime. Here is
    a similarity to the M-theory. The complete wave function of a particle
    would be of form:

    Ψ= ∑ E × D × C × B × A (6.1)


    A. = exp[-iπ(p0x0 -p1x1 - p2x2 - p3x3 - pmxm)] representing linear
    (1-dimensional) momentum, including energy and mass. xm is the extra
    dimension [1] and pm = mc.
    B. A spinor representing plane (2-dimensional) angular momentum.
    C. A solid angle spinor representing solid (3-d) angular momentum.
    Solid angle rotation runs from one plane (2-brane) to another (among
    the 10 planes) while preserving plane angular momentum. Symmetry of
    solid angle rotation is suspected to be those of iso-spin, strangeness,
    charm, etc. The interaction through solid angle rotation is believed
    to be weak interaction.
    D. A 4-d rotation spinor representing 4-d angular momentum. 4-d
    rotation runs from one 3-plane (3-brane) to another (among the 10
    3-planes) while preserving solid angular momentum. This symmetry
    probably generates KL and KS, the mixtures of K0 and anti-K0 mesons.
    The interactions may be the CP-violation interactions.
    E. A 5-d rotation spinor representing 5-d angular momentum. 5-d
    rotation runs from one 4-d plane (4-brane) to another among the 5 4-d
    planes while preserving 4-d angular momentum. Fields in 5-d rotations
    may be causing the strong interactions. The symmetry of 4-d angular
    momentum might be the color symmetry which exists but cannot be
    observed in isolation.

    This shows the full symmetry property of the external 4+1 spacetime
    is very rich indeed, which is enough to cover all particles (including
    hadrons, leptons and photons altogether). At the same time, weak,
    strong, and CP-violation interactions are but analog of
    electromagnetism in solid and higher-dimensional angle rotations, while
    gravitation is the interaction corresponding to the linear symmetry,
    according to the 4+1 vector gravitation theory [1]. Actually, without
    the addition of solid (3-d) angle, 4-d and 5-d angle rotations,
    Poincare group (or the symmetries of 4+1 spacetime) would not be

    VII. Simplicity, Obviousness And Universality Requirements Of Ultimate
    Theory Point To Solid Angle And Higher Symmetries

    In the April 10, 2000 issue of the Time magazine, one of the founders
    of the standard model, Professor Steven Weinberg, prescribed the
    criteria for the ultimate theory, “... [it] has to be simple - not
    necessarily a few short equations, but equations that are based on a
    simple physical principle ... it has to give us the feeling that it
    could scarcely be different from what it is... More and more is being
    explained by fewer and fewer fundamental principles... no further
    simplification would be possible.†Unfortunately, the current
    standard model is not as simple and obvious as desired. (I.e. the real
    ultimate theory seems yet to be discovered.) Equally important, the
    ultimate theory should answer the ultimate questions below:

    1. Why the ultimate building blocks behave the way they do, not by
    lower level constituents, but by “itselfâ€.
    2. Why it is this but not other set of building blocks which is chosen
    as the ultimate building blocks of Nature.
    3. What ensures the same building blocks be created identically
    everywhere in the universe.

    In the past, atoms were able to explain the existence and properties
    of molecules, and protons, neutrons and electrons the existence and
    properties of atoms, but none were able to explain their own existence
    and properties. Neither could they explain why they are created
    identically universally, e.g. an electron one billion light years away
    be created identically as one nearby. A common “principleâ€(rather
    than a new fundamental building blocks) which rules “throughout the
    universe simultaneously†must exist to ensure all building blocks be
    created identically at such a distance.

    Electromagnetism as a model
    Unlike the standard model, electromagnetism has reached such a simple
    and obvious level as prescribed by Weinberg, and its quanta, photon,
    answers all the ultimate questions perfectly. (It appears obviousness
    and simplicity go hand in hand with the 3 ultimate questions). Observe
    there are 2 Maxwell equations when expressed in 3+1 Lorentz spacetime.
    The first is essentially equivalent to a definition of electric and
    magnetic fields. The only real equation of motion is the second which
    simply demands conservation of the fields defined by the first equation
    (i.e. it doesn’t say much either, as what else can it be if the
    fields don’t conserve?) It is really “simple and obvious†(i.e.
    “can scarcely be different from what it isâ€). Photon emerges from
    quantization of electromagnetic field, which on the other hand serves
    to define the Lorentz spacetime. Photons, electromagnetism and Lorentz
    spacetime are intimately tied to each other as if they were other sides
    of the same 3-sided coin. Symmetries of photon is just symmetries of
    the external spacetime. “No other choice would be possibleâ€, as no
    symmetry properties of Lorentz spacetime is not represented in photon.
    It exists by itself “without lower level constituentsâ€. Andas long
    as the local spacetime is Lorentzian, photons are created
    “identically anywhere in the universeâ€. Not surprisingly, the
    first half of 20th century witnessed a flourishing era for physics as
    culminated by the extremely accurate verification of quantum
    electrodynamics (QED).

    It makes sense to emphasize that electromagnetism being simple and
    obvious is “not†because we have chosen the right quanta, photon,
    but because we have chosen the right (Lorentz) spacetime. Imagine if
    Lorentz spacetime were not discovered, electromagnetism would appear as
    mysterious as strong and weak forces. Even photon would be complex and
    considered as associated with “internal symmetryâ€, as the
    symmetries of the external (Newtonian) space and time do not match that
    of photon’s. But as soon as Lorentz spacetime is used, the theory
    changes immediately from mysterious and complex to obvious and simple.
    Similar dramatic change also happened when Ptolemy planetary model was
    changed to Copernican. Complexity and mysteriousness mixed with
    certain plausibility are typical symptoms of physics expressed in
    “wrong†spacetime, which seem to be shared by the standard model.
    In other words, what’s needed in simplifying strong/weak theory is
    not a change of building blocks but a refinement of spacetime.

    Mimicking electromagnetism
    In this respect, it is insightful to point out that Lorentz
    spacetime is defined by nothing but electromagnetism itself. Yet, the
    only thing standard model did not mimic electromagnetism is that strong
    and weak interactions are not expressed in an (external) spacetime
    geometry defined by the interactions themselves. All contemporary
    theories are constructed to fit the already-defined Lorentz spacetime
    (i.e. to fit straightly the data measured under Lorentz scales), while
    what’s needed may actually be a “spacetime geometry that isdefined
    to fit†the interactions, just like Lorentz spacetime was defined to
    fit electromagnetism.

    If such a spacetime can be found, then complexity and mysteriousness
    may turn into simplicity and obviousness, while particles, interactions
    and the (external) geometry would form an intimately related 3-sided
    coin like photons, electromagnetism and Lorentz spacetime.
    Consequently, symmetries of all particles would coincide with that of
    the “external†spacetime and hence answer all the 3 ultimate
    questions in the same way photon does. Actually, it seems that an
    (external) spacetime defined by strong/weak interactions is the
    “only†answer to the 3 ultimate questions, because the onlything
    that exists “throughout the universe simultaneously†seems to be
    the external spacetime itself, and it appears there is no way “a
    priori building blocks†is able to answer its own properties without
    referring to one more level of sub-constituents. As explained earlier,
    assigning interactions in solid angle and higher dimensional angle
    rotations (of the external spacetime) to strong/weak interactions
    readily fits all the above prescriptions perfectly.

    Under this view, the reality of the ultimate building blocks of Nature
    is not any undestructible hard-cored object, but a (non-dissipative)
    wave packet of certain 5-d, 4-d, 3-d (solid) angular momentum, plane
    angular momentum and linear momentum, which is essentially the same as
    a photon, except phone has only plane angular momentum and linear
    momentum. This meets Weinberg’s criteria of all being based on a
    simple physical principle as well. Under this view, particle (a wave
    packet) is more like an illusion than a real object, as it is but the
    envelop of the superposition of mono waves.

    VIII. Conclusion and Discussion

    As inherent parts of spacetime geometry, a complete Poincare group
    should include the symmetries from linear displacement, plane angle,
    solid angle and 4-d rotations (and 5-d rotations for 4+1 spacetime).
    Associated with each of them may be gravitation, electromagnetic, weak,
    CP-violation and strong interactions, respectively. The reason we
    never thought about solid angle rotation and beyond is because we
    always “assumed†the equivalence between plane angle scalesand
    hence the need for solid angle rotation to ensure their equivalence
    disappeared. This works fine with electromagnetism (and gravitation)
    because EM concerns only with the equivalence between linear scales
    (which requires plane angle rotation), but not that between plane angle
    scales (which requires solid angle rotation). When weak force came up,
    we were simply surprised at the existence ofthe spectrum of numerous
    particles without a bit clue that they could also originate from the
    symmetries of the (external) spacetime just like the 2 photon states.
    This shows an “assumption†in the definition of spacetime geometry
    may lock the door to a new geometric aspect. Until these fundamental
    geometric aspects are exhausted and excluded, there seems to be no
    reason to rush to other exotic ideas, especially in the form of a
    deeper layer of un-ending building blocks. This could be another
    revolution of string theory, as it may establish a link between strings
    and the external spacetime and escalates observations to the
    electroweak scale.


    [1] see: another Google discussion:

    Web page of SPS: [PLAIN]http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~sps/ [Broken]
    Posted via: http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.physics.strings
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted