Sunday, September 18, 2011

Tony's Condensate

Tony Smith has kindly summarised his well known analysis of the correct Higgs mechanism, in light of its relation to MUBs. This prediction of a mass triplet associated to a top quark condensate should be taken far more seriously than anything a stringer, loopie or groupie says about EW symmetry breaking.

For a $3 \times 3$ octonion matrix version of the physics model see this wonderful 1995 paper. I am very sorry, Tony, that I never spotted that before. Now I still think fairies are fairies, but Tony's main prediction is for quark mass states, not for a Higgs boson or other new field. Let us hope he is correct.

And here are Tony's papers at viXra.


  1. Tony, as you know, I never looked past all the Clifford algebra on your website. When I saw all your binary counting, I never realised that it was exactly the binary 'source-target' of the braids, and I wanted to see more categorical background independence. But despite the overemphasis on local physics, your model is Great!!

    Since you are basically right about the mass ratios, your three state top quark prediction is on MUCH more solid ground than I realised. I guess the LHC will tell us next year some time, if that is the case. And they will of course, as I keep saying, rule out the Standard Model fairy later this year.

  2. OK, Tony, so you use $O$, $OO$ and $OOO$ for the three generations, in a Jordan algebra context. Now Michael Rios and I use the bioctonions $C \cdot O$ (instead of $O$) for $SL_{2}(CO)$ and then triality puts this into the $3 \times 3$ algebra in three ways.

    Does that not mean that we use $C \cdot O$ as a condensed alternative to your generation pair $(O,OO)$? No wait ... your Shilov boundaries give the complexification, which is our $C$ in $CO$. So you would probably insist on $H \cdot CO$ to cover an $i,j,k$ copy of $O$, no? But do we really need this much? The braiding should be more subtle. We already have one generation with a set of Bilson-Thompson braids in a $2 \times 2$ complex representation. (Note the $H \cdot CO$ is of dimension $64$).

  3. And then, I definitely don't buy inflation or cosmological constants. You seem happy with varying $c$, so why not use Louise's alternative cosmology?

  4. If you took Louise's $\Omega_{d} = 3/4 \pi = 0.2387$ and $\Omega_{b} = 1 - 3/\pi$, how does that affect your mass estimates?

  5. Thanks very much for the nice post.
    My apologies for submitting my immediately previous comment comparing Braids and Clifford Algebras to the older post/thread instead of this one. Please feel free to move it to this one if you want to do so.

    As to varying-c,
    my E8 Physics cosmology has a lot in common with Louise's,
    as I have said for years in blog comments.
    For example, on Louise's blog entry "Why Dark Energy Is Bad For Astronomy" (9 August 2007), I said in part:
    "... The cosmology of Irving Ezra Segal ... showed that "redshift" cosmological data might be explained by a two-phase gravity:
    at large distances a conformal (varying c) elliptic energy operator
    at local distances a MInkoswki (constant c) nilpotent operator
    ... the work ...[is]... conformal equivalent of Louise's varying-c ...".
    I am not only using varying-c, but also the other conformal variations that are contained in Segal's conformal gravity.

    the "establishment" view is just about as hostile to Segal and his ideas as it is to Louise and her ideas,
    which shows how wrong I was
    when youthful idealism led me to be interested in science
    because I then thought that
    science was a field in which search for truth was paramount
    and political connections were irrelevant.
    In my own work I stayed with the "search for truth" view
    but at the cost being blacklisted etc.


  6. Ah, good. Yes, Tony, I have seen how the Inquisition works, as another blacklisted person. Inquisitors don't like to be told about a cosmology that is far superior to their own, because to be a Inquisitor one has to believe, deep down, that the Establishment knows better than everyone else, even in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary.

    But some of your vixra papers still contain sections on inflation, no? With a varying $c$ this is entirely unnecessary.

  7. And just to note here, from the categorical viewpoint, all the (conformal) geometry is emergent. Since MUBs and braids are arithmetic structures they may be linked to the 'pregeometry', and have a better chance of correctly determining the particle spectrum. Now since Tony's algebra is essentially in these terms, his top quark preditions look pretty good.

    But I would like to see more accurate numbers from the Koide picture ...

  8. As to why I still use inflation,
    even though varying c lets you eliminate it by Occam's Razor,
    it is
    because I can see
    ( using the model of Paola Zizzi in gr-qc/0007006 )
    that it is natural in terms of Clifford Algebras (and therefore Braids etc also).

    Details of why I like it are at
    In short,
    Paola Zizzi has shown that an initial Inflationary Phase can be seen as a Conscious Thought of the Universe Itself (G-d?)
    very similar to
    the Penrose idea of Quantum Consciousness.

    Not only are the overall ideas similar, but if you do numerical calculations comparing the End of Inflation with the Formation of a Penrose Quantum Conscious Thought,
    the numbers look similar,
    and you even get the result that Inflation produces roughly the number of particles that are in our universe.

    Since Quantum Consciousness is not popular with the establishment (a great understatement) Paola Zizzi and her ideas are not widely known.
    I suspect the fact that she is female Italian has not helped her ideas to become espoused by the Establishment.

    Although Segal was disrespected by the establishment, at least he was male. If he had been female, he would never have been professor at Chicago and MIT and I would never have heard of his conformal gravity.

    As to getting blacklisted myself,
    I had an advantage of being male (otherwise I could never have gone to Princeton when I did, 1959-63, and I would not have learned the difference between a Lie group and a bale of cotton).
    Even further, if it had been known when I was growing up that my mother was part black, I could not have even gone to Cartersville High School (back then they did not have the DNA tests that show my black ancestry).
    all in all I dodged the consequences of gender and race bias,
    but fell victim to bias against independent thought.


  9. Tony, Zizzi's work sounds interesting, but I believe we can incorporate all these principles without inflation. Moreover, as far as I can tell from my cabin, astronomers have disproved inflation and no longer take it seriously.

  10. It seems to me that the main issue here is that you still think of the universe as being Unique somehow, albeit nicely quantum, whereas I would not fix a Planck scale or allow a universal viewpoint. Our cosmic horizons are not equivalent to those for other observers. In this way, $\hbar$ varies with $c$ in Louise's picture, and that would imply what for your mass states? Hmmm.

  11. Tony, I deleted that last comment, because it violates my comment policy. Please do not be offended.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.