More leading stringers appear to have abandoned String Theory for interesting ideas. First there was Verlinde and now, as mentioned by Resonaances, there is a classicalisation paper by Dvali et al. I have not read it, but I just enjoyed a very nice talk by one of the authors, Cesar Gomez, starting with a heuristic discussion of minimal lengths, generalised uncertainty principles and a UV/IR correspondence.
He briefly mentions deeper holographic principles, underlying their basic idea of automatic creation of classical black hole states in the localisation of energy as a fairy free unitarisation mechanism. Question time included a lovely comment on the quantum classical transition as a domain for mass quantum number generation, which Nature now tells us should centre on neutral particles.
14 years ago
This week I am thinking about a neutral particle with a U(1) electromagnetic gauge symmetry. Specifically, about building a supermultiplet (two scalars and a fermion component) with electric quantum number non zero. Should it be neutral? Should the fermion be neutral and the scalar charged, but massive? Does mass help, at all?
ReplyDeleteYes, this is very fascinating. And it also must mean that the fine structure constant is not constant at all. And maybe that the symmetry is built from scratch. I wonder what the tool-intervals may be? Why do the different forces look like they do? Primes? You have come on something really big, Kea.
ReplyDeleteLook at picture http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7320/full/468040a.html
Ulla, I think one should keep alpha constant. The physical picture is nicer when one varies other constants - say $e$ and $\hbar$. I will post on this ...
ReplyDeleteSounds interesting. You have changed your mind? Nice.
ReplyDeleteThis will be great science.
Alejandro, no mass, geometry instead, area.
No, Ulla, I have NOT changed my mind about this. If you really want to understand the position, you need to spend several years studying older posts and papers.
ReplyDelete