The 20th century insistence on manifest locality in particle physics hearkens back to the materialist age, and to the inadequacy of classical methods. Today we know that locality is an extra condition, emerging from more fundamental categorical rules. Geometry is not always commutative. The tetractys is but a commutative shadow of three qutrit paths, and a doubling of the tetractys is obtained on considering two distinct bracketings for nonassociative paths.
Rest mass cannot be due to fairies, because rest mass must reside in the localization rules. As the successful Koide formula has shown us, these rules go beyond classical geometry, classical symmetry and the ubiquitous Lagrangian. The particles we observe are braids, and there are no braids for fairies. The $54$ dimensions of the bioctonion algebra account for $27$ (left handed) particles: $3$ electrons, $6$ neutrinos, $18$ quarks. The dark sector will be explained by the non local properties of this spectrum. New matter is a matter for engineering, not for fairy tales.
Too bad for you, I happen to know that the rumors of the Higgs signal happen to be completely true. However, I'm sure even this reality will prevent you from spouting your utter nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWell now, Emperor, perhaps you could point us to the exact post where I ignore an important experimental result? And as for anyone but CMS and ATLAS members knowing the result ahead of time, well, any reasonable person will see that my scepticism is well grounded. And if you are a member of CMS and ATLAS, then (i) you have just behaved extremely unprofessionally, and (ii) you cannot be a real string theorist.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we doubted all along that you are a Real String Theorist, because it's pretty clear that you don't actually know anything. By the way, you missed a crucial 'not' in your comment, which renders your insult inoperative. Try harder next time.
ReplyDeleteThis Higgs discussion is interesting for me, because it seems that you have multiple origins of mass in your theory, and I'm wondering if it's consistent with a composite Higgs after all.
ReplyDeleteWhat I understand is that, on the one hand, we have Koide formulae for mass quantum numbers, which should have a motivic explanation, and then on the other hand, we have "neutrino gravity", in which both gravity and mass are due to mirror neutrinos holographically originating from the cosmological horizon. I don't see anything so far which rules out the existence of a bound state of mirror neutrinos that could look like a Higgs.
What's more interesting is how the motivic and the mirror-neutrino explanation of mass could converge. There's no reason it can't, but does it require new ideas, or is this something you've already addressed?
Still, the argument should be different for the fermion fairies than for the W and Z fairies. Really the Higgs mechanism was addressed to the lated, and its use for fermions, via the yukawa couplings, is an "enhancement". What Koide rules is telling us is that this "enhancement" was a bad idea, because then the fits should be better for the masses run at 246 GeV, and on contrary it happens to be better in the low energy range. So Higgs yukawas do not exist, or they have a peculiar symmetry, or they are so peculiar (condensates, preon, etc) that we can not call them seriously Higgs couplings.
ReplyDeleteBut for W and Z fairies, the Koide argument does not apply, except that now we know to produce the mass of the top from Koide and then is very suspicius that this mass is equal to the Fermi scale. An extra hint is the peculiar decay rate of Z0, that I reported years ago, and that puts Z0 in the same foot that other mesons.
I agree there is no Higgs particle. Nor any local unitary symmetry. There is a complete unified field theory without them. The theory is general relativity with three dimensions of time. See the document by Peter Gillan at ArXiv.org
ReplyDeletehehe
ReplyDeleteMitchell, you are of course right that the situation is unclear, but as Alejandro points out, we are clearly looking at a very non standard mechanism. So why posit a composite Higgs as a localised state? Nature doesn't give a damn that the right answer looks nothing like the old theory. As far as I can tell, the only person who might be right about composites is Tony Smith, and we cannot call his condensate a 'composite Higgs' because it comes from quarks!
ReplyDelete3DTime, I am not going to look at your paper. If you are only using techniques such as GR, you cannot possibly hope to derive it, and your theory is then inadequate to be called a true advance in physics. Here, we have no problem with three times, because we have been using these ideas for many years.
ReplyDeleteKea, please disregard the display name of my last comment. It should be "3DTime" and not the "Relativist."
ReplyDelete