Why Are Yang-Mills Fields Crucial to the Standard Model?

[Epsilon Pi]

problems with the tool?

My apologies Marlon, for not answering your point. As I have pointed out in other post, the main problem with QM and GTR is that they have an incommesurability problem, in part for the different paradigms from which they start that has to do with two different languages that do not talk to each other, I mean Tensor Analysis and Complex numbers, as in the latter it is possible to rationalize duality what cannot be done in the former. The tool as a tool can be used anywhere, but would you not as an engineer use a tool that fit better for the problem in question?

Regards

EP

Different languages, but they both use tensors, so they can not be the cause of problems.

Indeed strings are not yet a certainty
But we are forgetting one fine concept of from topology. What about compactification and wrapped up dimensions? Maybe this is taking us to far.

Don't just say they talk different languages just because of the difficulties we have in unifying them. Both models use tensors extensively because of the same reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that one uses fields and the other uses curvature of spacetime

 

[marlon]

ok, got your point and I agree.

But complex numbers can be used in GTR right ?

Besides why would we need to introduce the particle-wave-duality in GTR ?

I think this can be done by fields which are also used in GTR just as in the same way that they are used in QFT

regards
marlon

 

[Epsilon Pi]

using complex numbers in GTR?

Hi Marlon,

How would you use complex numbers in GTR? by using Complex Tensors? did Einstein try that?

No, we cannot introduce the wave-particle duality in GTR, at least, in what we undertand by it according to Einstein

Regards

EP

ok, got your point and I agree.

But complex numbers can be used in GTR right ?

Besides why would we need to introduce the particle-wave-duality in GTR ?

regards
marlon

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Now I have been able to read the paper, but let me please repeat here what I posted somewhere else

Cannot those dualities be rationalized, as it were, in a complex mathematical description, i.e., a basic unit system which is not anymore an inequality?, but an equation in which the equal sign is not precisely a symbol JUST to reduce the one to the other? a symbol that permits us to include both, yes-or-no, and complementarity?
Will not be this complex mathematical symbolism nearer to QM? Don't we need a symbolism with which the main fundamental equations of physics, such as those of the Lorentz transformation group, the Schrödinger wave equation, those of gravitational fields, both Newtonian and einsteinian, and additionally those laws of the pendulum that as was pointed out by T.S.K
"How else are we to account for Galileo's discovery that the bob's period is entirely independent of amplitude, a discovery that the normal science stemming from Galileo had to radicate and that we are quite unable to document today?"

can be expressed, not as some kind of TOE, but as a mathematical procedure or language that permits to include them all?... but is really modern physics interested in such an endeavor?

Just some repetitive thoughts in my mind

EP

Lonewolf:
The main reason is that general relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. There have been attempts to develop a gravitational uncertainty principle. You may
be interested in http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9904026

Kurious:

This gravitational uncertainty principle is for a rough Newtonian approximation:

x = h/p + ( p/ h) L^2

where p is uncertainty in momentum x is uncertainty in distance and L is the Planck length.