[General] SU(2) equation set
John Williamson
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Wed Nov 11 05:17:45 PST 2015
Dear David,
Mu. "Putting things in" in a symptom of the current disease in physics. The first question is anyway:which SU(2)? The standard model plonks in lots of them .. spin. isospin, lepton number ... loads more. It also sticks in a U(1) and a couple of SU(3)'s (that of "colour" and "flavour"). it is often stated that the standard model is U(1) CROSS SU(2) CROSS SU(3). Not so, It is more like U(1) EM CROSS U(1) weak CROSS SU(2) spin CROSS SU(2) ln CROSS SU(2) CROSS SU(3) flavour CROSS SU(3) colour cross ... Each time you plonk in another a-priori "group" you add levels of complexity to the starting point, such that the standard model as it stands has about 50 of them. Also, putting in any group a-priori then removes the possibility of explaining where the group has come from. Any time any experimentalist finds a new symmettry - whammo - some daft theorist whacks it in as a starting point. One does not want to stick them in - one wants to derive them. I get SU(2) spin out, already. Why would I ever, then, want to put it in?
Regards, John.
________________________________
From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:50 AM
To: John Williamson
Subject: Re: SU(2) equation set
John
The straw man failed.
Let me approach this from a different direction. Just for the record, I'm not interested in writing a paper. I'm simply interested in getting to SU(2). How would you add SU(2) to your current equation set?
David
________________________________
From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:39 PM
Subject: RE: SU(2) equation set
Hello David,
Had a look at the equations but I think there is a problem as you are kind of putting things in twice. The vector potential appears in my equations as a vector - you are also putting it in as a complex number - which both expands the algebra and confuses the situation as you are using two different dimensions for the same quantity. I think the same problem exist (by the look of it) for the Barret formulation itself. There is a similar problem in Dirac QM which, famously, led Dirac into the mists of confusion as well.
Also, I see the U(1) part of what you are doing - but where is the SU(2) part?
Regards, John.
________________________________
From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:38 AM
To: John Williamson
Subject: SU(2) equation set
John
As a raw draft I've combined the Williamson equations with Barrett equations to produce a framework for a U(1) X SU(2) version.
The general approach has been to use the Williamson notation since the primary focus is on electron modeling regardless of whether the photonic electron or quanta electron are used. Also, these equations remain to vetted properly and represent a working framework instead of a full matrix with appropriate interpretation.
Right now, there is confusion in notation with a conflicts in the use of A and B.
See attached.
David
________________________________
From: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
To: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Slide Deck
John
Thank you. now I recall these papers this summer's work. So not that winter is begun (raining in California), I'll reread them.
Barrett did have extensions to Maxwell-Heaviside equations. I'm wondering if a similar treat can be extended to your additional set of four and the consequences thereof. SU(2), no SU(3).
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf
Best regards my friend,
David
________________________________
From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Slide Deck
Hello David,
SPIE papers at:
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/1/110966.pdf
Regards, John.
________________________________
From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:09 AM
To: John Williamson
Subject: Slide Deck
John
Do you have a slide deck summarizing the model?
Best
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151111/273d0e9f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list