jump to navigation

Composite models in the making March 22, 2007

Posted by dorigo in Blogroll, internet, mathematics, physics, science.
trackback

Carl Brannen posted today a long comment in a recent post I wrote about the Koide mass formula. He is working at composite models of fermions which would sidestep the existence of the Higgs.

I must say I do not understand much about his ideas, but I find it a cool sideline – and these days, sidelines cannot be sidestepped, jokes aside. We are stuck with a beautiful toy – the Standard Model of electroweak interactions –  of which we have grown tired of, but it does not seem to want to break down. And until it does, Ma and Pa won’t buy us a better one – so we look around for alternatives, even if they might at first sight look jerky…

Comments

1. Alejandro Rivero - March 22, 2007

In “Families from Spinors”, a Phys. Rev. D 25, 553 – 565 (1982) of Wilczek and Zee, it is said that the occurrence of spinors in GUT theories can be related to a classification of composite particles. I have already referred to this paper in the thread preons! (subquarks, etc…) in physicsforums.
The original idea from Koide’s was a composite model, and it has sense to look if Koide-like relationships happen in particles we know are composite: mesons and baryons. But while Carl is looking to them from the perspective of compositeness of the standard model particles, I am still willing to save the fundamentality of these particles… by postulating that they are not composite, but supersymmetric to composite particles.
Sort of an answer to why the mass of the muon is so near of the mass of the pion: a mildly broken susy. But also an answer to why Koide’s relationship for composites appears in the charged leptons: because before susy breaking, the electron, muon and tau are partners of composite scalars, and the breaking mechanism causes havoc in the composite partners, but does not affect Koide’s equation on the elementary partners.

2. Alejandro Rivero - March 22, 2007

I would add to the cooking recipe for preonism the thread on The Fermion Cube which, thanks to kneemo, contains some traditional group theory hints.

3. Kea - March 23, 2007

Cool, Tommaso. Just a comment on the title of the post: the composite nature of things is often taken literally to mean a new fundamental level. But as Heisenberg said, the particles never were fundamental, containing in some sense the potential of others. Alejandro will get his cool SUSY in the string language version of this.

4. Carl Brannen - March 23, 2007

A better description of the reason for writing down that particular set of six quadratic equations is given in sectino 4.3 of this incomplete paper.

This all will eventually go to the much longer and more detailed book, but the above is the short version intended for submission to Foundations of Physics.

5. dorigo - March 23, 2007

Hi Alejandro,

thank you for linking that thread, it is quite interesting… I wish I had more time to delve into the matter: it is frustrating to see things I am interested in being developed, and being unable to follow the works more closely.

Kea, thank you for your comment (and for the link!). I do know about AR’s work on composite susy partners to fermions, and I like the idea…

Thank you for the additional references Carl. Keep us posted!

Cheers,
T.

6. carlbrannen - July 4, 2007

Dorigo,

My extension of the Koide formula was sufficiently interesting that it now has 4 journal citations despite not being published.

7. dorigo - July 7, 2007

Hi Carl,

that’s very good news! I did give a look at your site. Are you sure you do not want to try to publish it ?

Cheers,
T.

8. carlbrannen - July 15, 2007

Dorigo,

I guess if I were a professional and worried about getting tenure or having the department chair assign my office to be one of the stalls in the men’s room (or something like that), then I’d have a great desire to publish. But I’m an amateur, a person who studies for the love of it.

Doing physics is great fun. Writing papers is dull, but necessary every now and then I suppose. Getting published is quite painful. Furthermore, it seems to me that if my work gets cited, then it really doesn’t need to be published. That’s the purpose of getting published anyway.

By the way, I’ve recently discovered that WordPress blogs like yours (and mine) allow LaTex in the blogs and comments. The only problem is that there is no place to test things in comments. But if you don’t make mistakes you can get away with it. For example, V = \pi R^3.

Their LaTex is actually quite sophisticated and can do amazing and quite complicated things. Because of this, I’m seriously considering no longer writing LaTex articles (except for that book I’ve been working on), in favor of simply putting blogs and pages on WordPress. The advantages are that it is easy to put in photographs and hand drawn stuff, it allows comments in LaTex, links to other sites is convenient, and it shows up quite well in internet searches.

You can also set up private blogs on WordPress and allow a few researchers to work with you. You can do this on this blog in a way. Give another researcher high enough access and he can read your saved but not yet published posts. You can communicate by writing on these. And later you can publish it and let anyone read it.

(I hope you don’t mind if I call you “Dorigo”. It comes out in English as a cool name. The other option is for me to go searching around to figure out how to get the right number of m’s and s’s in your first name, Anglicize it to Tom or Thomas, or use “T”.)

9. dorigo - July 15, 2007

Hi Carl,

I understand. Publishing papers is complicated and not necessary in your case. I agree, doing science does not imply it.

However, I think that going to conferences and presenting one’s work to other people working on the same field is very important. That, unfortunately, seems to be difficult to achieve from a non-structured position of an outsider who does things his own way.

I thus think that publishing may be painful and tedious, but it has to be done at least a few times, to allow one to enter the circle of discussion.

Call me any way you wish, dorigo is fine. And thanks for the info about latex – I will start to use it.

Cheers,
T.

there still is a way to make your work more accessible and known. That is p

10. carlbrannen - July 16, 2007

Tommaso, (I will try and remember the spelling by mentally associating the pinball (i.e. particle) wizard “Tommy” rather than “Thomas” which otherwise influences English speakers to spell your given name with one M and then compensate by giving an extra S.)

I’ve not had much problem going to conferences. The American Physical Society meetings are open to any member in good standing, and any entity on the planet can be such if they pay. They tend to put amateur lectures on at times convenient for the researchers to not attend, especially at the big yearly APS meetings.

Signing up for a conference is very fruitful mostly because it sets a deadline by which you need to complete research. As an amateur, physics conferences are incredibly intense. Imagine having an obscure and rare hobby that no one you meet day to day can talk to you about, and then suddenly you’re surrounded by thousands of people with the same interest, who talk about the subject day and night.

When I started doing this stuff I was very sure that I was the only person in the world working on it (my way) and I could take my sweet time about publishing because I was so alone. And it was so strange that publishing it would be impossible anyway, until it’s complete. These opinions have oscillated one way or another as I discover people doing similar things or find a formula that fits in with somebody else’s, but right now I just don’t see any benefit to writing things up.

Nobody actually reads the things I write. They might glance through it to see if it helps them with whatever theory they’re already pursuing, but I know that they don’t actually read it because if they did they’d contact me about the (inevitable) confusing explanations, misused words, and typographical errors. I think that professionals who veer from the beaten track also experience this. Physicists are bosons.

The way to get readers (and citations) is to either do stuff that is very closely related to something someone else is already working on, or to write your conclusions in mathematics no more complicated than trigonometry and matrices. I have only the latter available. Uh, as long as we have \LaTeX over here now, I will write you a hint of what I’m working on (written so no one has to suffer to understand it).

Let l_n be the three charged lepton masses in MeV. Let \Gamma_{3/2-,n} be the masses of the three \Gamma_{3/2-} resonances, i.e. the \Gamma(1520), \Gamma(1690), \Gamma(2325). Let \mu = 17.716 \sqrt{MeV} and \delta = 0.22222204717, also known as “that damned number”.

Then \sqrt{l_n}/\mu = (1 + \sqrt{0})+ (9/9)\sqrt{2}\cos(2n\pi/3+\delta) is the Koide formula,
and \sqrt{\Gamma_{3/2-,n}}/\mu = (1+\sqrt{2}) + (2/9)\sqrt{2}\cos(2n\pi/3+\delta) is its analog for the $\Gamma_{3/2-}$ resonances. By the way, \mu^2 is 9x Nambu’s 35 MeV.

The method fails if someone finds a baryon resonance multiplet (i.e. baryon resonances with same quantum numbers) with more than 3 elements, so I watch the PDG carefully. Formally, the idea is to perturb around color bound states (instead of free states) using Schwinger’s measurement algebra / density operator methods.

11. carlbrannen - July 16, 2007

Ooops. They really need to give us a “preview”. Where the above has \Gamma, it needs to have \Lambda instead. But otherwise, only one typo, I forgot “latex” in the second to last paragraph.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: