A new Theory on fundamental physics

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:17 pm UTC

Hi everybody,
First of all, Randall your book "What if?" is great and I spent wonderful time reading it.

There is a theory from Jacques Consiglio about elementary particles resonnance that implies energy (mass, movement and magnetic field) and from my understanding explains simply the relationships between the particles.
I also believes it could fills a gap between quantum physics and relativity but I'm not skilled enough in physics to fully undertand what this theory means.
Everything is explained (limits of speed, energy, magnetism, mass & gravitation) through a concept of resonance of elementary particles and simple equations, and it allows deducting from the resonance pattern the energy of elementary particles in a consistent way with teh standard model (and experiments that confirmed the standard model).

I have worked in the past with Jacques for years building satellite control centres, he's quite smart, and I strongly believe there are great insisights in his papers, but I do not fully undertand all that he explains.

While I am not a physicist and definitely not skilled enough to fully understand the picture, I believe Randall and some readers of this forum would have better skills to understand the concepts and could be interrested to learn about it.

The articles are publicly available on ccsenet website (Canadian Center of Science and Education) in Applied Physics Research area, unfortunatly I cannot post the links on this forum (otherwise it is interpreted as SPAM)
Simply search for consiglio on ccsenet.org or use the articles number below.

What do you think about those articles and the theory?

  • On Particles Mass and the Universons Hypothesis : on ccsenet.org article 16984
  • Relativity, Magnetic Charge, and Weak Bosons Mass : on ccsenet.org article 16984
  • Quantized Charges and Currents in the Electromagnetic Field: on ccsenet.org article 21878
  • Minkowski Space and Tachyon Velocity: on ccsenet.org article 28751
  • Below the Standard Model?: on ccsenet.org article 3834933740
  • On the Field Below SM, Analysis and Predictions: on ccsenet.org article 38349

stoppedcaring
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby stoppedcaring » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:09 pm UTC

As with any other "new physics", I have two questions:

1. What predictions does this model make which differ from the Standard Model?

and

2. When/how can these predictions be tested?

If it's a good theory, it'll be able to answer those two questions fairly easily.

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:45 pm UTC

I'm not a physicist, so I apologize if those questions do not make sense to me, AFAIK It doesn't really go against the standard model and does not exactly pretends to replace it in any way, but it attempts to explains why particles have a particular amount of energy under different forms, and why they interact in such a way.

From what I could understand, with simple formulas it redefines the relationship and interactions concept between particles, and their energy (whether energy is mass, movement or magnetic field). The forms of energy being a side effect of the resonance.
This theory predicts the mass and energy of all particles, the propagation of the interactions as a kind of resonance, and finds results closed to those that have been proven by the standard model and could explain other aspects in interaction such as gravitation and why there could be no need for dark matter to explain gravitational effects between the galaxies.

But I speak about things I do not fully understand, this is why I am looking for other insights about this theory from people that are more comfortable with reading research papers.

schapel
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:33 am UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby schapel » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:38 am UTC

If you understand science, you'll understand that any good hypothesis will make testable predictions. We can then run experiments and reject any hypotheses that make predictions that are different from our observations. It's the scientific method. If this new theory does not make predictions that are different from our current models, or makes predictions that we cannot test, we can't test whether it's a better hypothesis than the status quo.

I propose that the FSM constructed the universe last Thursday, with implanted memories and light coming from faraway galaxies and all, to make it appear as if it's been here for billions of years. Show that my proposal is wrong. Good luck!

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby thoughtfully » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am UTC

schapel wrote:I propose that the FSM constructed the universe last Thursday, with implanted memories and light coming from faraway galaxies and all, to make it appear as if it's been here for billions of years. Show that my proposal is wrong. Good luck!

For any who have not yet been touched by His Noodly Appendage: Ye Olde Obligatory Linke.
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:23 am UTC

schapel wrote:If you understand science, you'll understand that any good hypothesis will make testable predictions. We can then run experiments and reject any hypotheses that make predictions that are different from our observations. It's the scientific method. If this new theory does not make predictions that are different from our current models, or makes predictions that we cannot test, we can't test whether it's a better hypothesis than the status quo.

I propose that the FSM constructed the universe last Thursday, with implanted memories and light coming from faraway galaxies and all, to make it appear as if it's been here for billions of years. Show that my proposal is wrong. Good luck!

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? That's not the only criteria for a new hypothesis being better than the status quo.

For example, if a new hypothesis makes the same predictions but has a more satisfactory rationale for known observations then that makes the new one superior, surely.

In this instance, what iolco51 appears to be saying is that, with this new hypothesis, the observed mass and energy of known particles simply fall out of the equations - whereas my understanding of modern standard physics is that much of that is pretty arbitrary - with merely a handwaving appeal to anthropic principles as to why they have the values they do.

Another reason for favoring a new hypothesis would be that it works identically well but the maths works out much simpler to use and/or conceptually it's much easier to grasp.

There are plenty of ways new hypotheses can be superior without any necessity for distinct and novel testable predictions.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:12 pm UTC

About the articles themselves, I will say that:

-They read like they were written by an undergrad.
-They only minimally cite current literature. Several citations are to arXiv. There are also a surprising number of citations to papers published in the same journal as the articles themselves, considering that it is, to put it generously, an extremely minor journal.
-They have a lot of self-citations.
-They're published in a journal that I have never heard of, and, as far as I can tell, virtually nobody else has ever heard of either. Considering the above, the journal looks suspiciously like a predatory journal that will publish anything.
-I would naively expect that if this were a major discovery, or even a minor discovery, then the author would have put the articles somewhere that people will actually read them.

Delving into the theory in detail will take a lot more time, but these are some red flags that stand out right away. This is still easily an order of magnitude better than the typical crackpot theory, though.

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:01 pm UTC

Thanks for your anwers,
this is perfectly true.

Those papers have been written by an engineer, not an academic physicist. They indeed probably look different, sound different, and smell different, with a not-so academic style.

I don't know whether the journal is serious, it seems to be enough. At least it looks like the papers are reviewed somehow and they are not accepted to be published via a financial transaction.

That said it seems that it's very difficult for somebody that is not in academic research to get listened, not to say reviewed.

I proposed those articles here because:
  • 1 I can hardly understand a few concepts in there.
  • 2 Whether the theory is right or wrong, I believe there's great insight since with "simple" concept and formulas it aims to explain mechanisms that physics do not explain yet.

Still I am not qualified to judge the relevance of this work, this is why I was looking for insights of people in this forum ;)

stoppedcaring
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby stoppedcaring » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:44 pm UTC

At first pass, it seems this work is based on the quantum gravity theories of Claude Poher, who proposes a universal energy flux responsible (among other things) for creating UFO appearances. Poher also argues that this flux can be harnessed to produce limitless electrical power. So I'm not inclined to view it with a great deal of hope, just on that basis.

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby thoughtfully » Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:10 pm UTC

iolco51 wrote:
  • 2 Whether the theory is right or wrong, I believe there's great insight since with "simple" concept and formulas it aims to explain mechanisms that physics do not explain yet.

This is a appealing idea, but what use are simple concepts and formulae that are wrong? What phenomena does it explain that current physics does not?
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:38 pm UTC

stoppedcaring wrote:At first pass, it seems this work is based on the quantum gravity theories of Claude Poher, who proposes a universal energy flux responsible (among other things) for creating UFO appearances. Poher also argues that this flux can be harnessed to produce limitless electrical power. So I'm not inclined to view it with a great deal of hope, just on that basis.


This is true for first paper, that was based or experimental claims of Claude Poher (experiments that allegedly created more cinetic energy than it should).
Then it forked as a different concept, but keeping the concept of scalar field (as in Poher theory, or in Higgs Field) but introducing the concept of resonance factors.

From this Jacques Consiglio can explain why there are different families of particles, how they are different, compute what is their energy, and how they interact, including gravitation, magnetism and electric field.

Maybe the concept of resonance is flawed somewhere (for instance the concept evolved among papers) , but being able to calculate the mass of particles (which nobody seemed to know where it came from, consistent with the numbers standard model that has been experimentally proven) with simple formulas within an excel spreadsheet and a tiny set of simple common factors already looks awesome to me.
The question is: is it chance or genius?

I'm trying to understand.
May some people more skilled in physics be able to help me finding out what is promising and what seems flawed on his papers.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:04 pm UTC

iolco51 wrote:Thanks for your anwers,
this is perfectly true.

Those papers have been written by an engineer, not an academic physicist. They indeed probably look different, sound different, and smell different, with a not-so academic style.

I don't know whether the journal is serious, it seems to be enough. At least it looks like the papers are reviewed somehow and they are not accepted to be published via a financial transaction.


I don't have experience with this particular journal enough to say for certain one way or the other. And being published in a virtually unknown journal does not necessarily preclude the author from being completely correct. It's just something to keep in mind when looking at these things.

That said it seems that it's very difficult for somebody that is not in academic research to get listened, not to say reviewed.


Well, I'd imagine that it's probably very hard for them to even produce something of publication quality in the first place, simply because you lack the resources (training, other researchers, access to journals, lab equipment, etc.) to effectively conduct research. Getting published is hard for people who work in academic research, so I'm sure it's much harder still for people who don't do this sort of thing for a living. That said, I don't think most journals would go out of their way to exclude papers simply because of the affiliations of their authors (at least, they shouldn't), as long as the papers meet the general standards set by the journal for publication.

  • 1 I can hardly understand a few concepts in there.
  • 2 Whether the theory is right or wrong, I believe there's great insight since with "simple" concept and formulas it aims to explain mechanisms that physics do not explain yet.

Still I am not qualified to judge the relevance of this work, this is why I was looking for insights of people in this forum ;)


You mentioned that you know the author. Wouldn't it make much more sense to ask him directly about the details of his research? I'm sure he can explain it to you better than any of us.

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:24 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:You mentioned that you know the author. Wouldn't it make much more sense to ask him directly about the details of his research? I'm sure he can explain it to you better than any of us.


I did quite a few times, and it's quite fascinating.
But I had one one point of view, and being the point of view of the author I am not sure this is completely objective ;)

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby thoughtfully » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:00 am UTC

A couple of not entirely random links that came to mind. There are also other threads in this forum on similar topics, but the ones I found were all short and unsatisfying.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... checklist/
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... edge?act=3
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:56 pm UTC

Thnks.

quantropy
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:55 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby quantropy » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:14 am UTC

It looks like Jacques Consiglio doesn't have a website. This seems a bit strange, since I would have thought that he would have wanted to let the world know about his ideas, not just people who read an obscure journal (It's even stranger if, as seems to be the case, he's running an internet based business).

I would like to see these ideas explained more simply on a website, preferably with the computations in a computer algebra system file so that it is clear what numbers are being input to generate the predictions of particle masses.

User avatar
Gammashield
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby Gammashield » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:02 pm UTC

Well, I looked through the first paper, and having done so... yeah, it's not looking good. Even a graduate-level education makes large chunks of this look shaky and invalid. I was willing to go into this with some skeptical optimism, since it seemed to be on a firmer mathematical platform than many crank papers, but it doesn't hold up.

First off... the paper is scarily classical. Physics hasn't looked like this since the end of the 19th century, and for good reason. I'm sure its writer thinks of this as a *strength*, not a weakness, trying to explain quantum behaviors using spatial, classical particle flux models, but most of modern science would not agree. And the 'let's rewrite quantum mechanics and relativity" should cause alarm bells that should go off in one's head. But these are meta-textual concerns, not errors, so they aren't really valid disproofs.

The derivation of the Schrodinger equation, however, *does* look like a real error. It's obvious why he wants to derive the Schrodinger equation. If he can make it pop naturally out of his framework, then in one stroke of the pen his theory is proven to agree with the majority of the insanely vast body of quantum mechanical experiments.

But it's *not* a valid derivation. Throughout the derivation, as far as I can tell, he treats P, the momentum, as a *function*, not an operator. That's... a rookie, undergraduate-level mistake. So he *gets* the expression ih dψ/dt = – P^2/2m ψ + eV ψ. But with P defined as it is (a function based on the temperature of the universon gas, and the time), the equation is *not* the schrodinger equation. What we have here is a *first* order differential equation, not a second, and that means no Quantum Mechanics derives from it. I'm sure the author would hand-wave this complaint off with an allusion to substituting in the operator once the equation is derived, but that really, really doesn't work. Either the derivatives are a full, natural part of your theory's application, and they're treated as such throughout... or you're just naming variables confusing names to make them look like familiar equations.

The derivation of the electron, muon, tau, and quark masses is just as worrying. Those masses are *not* naturally appearing out of the theory; as far as I can tell, there's no less than *five* arbitrarily chosen constants, in the attempt to massage his equation into fitting the data points of particle masses. (d of the electron, d of the quark, R, mu/X. mu, on top of rather random integer values of n, p, and k for each particle). Maybe I'm missing a spot in the paper where he derived one or more of those constants, but all told, as far as I can tell this isn't "deriving masses", it's tuning an equation.

Doubly worrying? He seems excited that the k values for the electron, muon, and tau are a (super short) sequence of prime numbers, and that the n values for quarks are either prime numbers, or those prime numbers times two. That's not a "remarkable aspect", as he puts it. That's a REALLY, REALLY BAD SIGN, and a sign we're looking at numerology, not physics. Hell, I'd be happier if it were "odd numbers", or "even numbers", or even just " a few random small numbers". Prime numbers... don't show up in physics. Like, ever. The laws of the universe and geometry *don't care about them*, barring a few obscure uses of the Reimann-zeta function, which is so indirect as to be almost completely inapplicable. They are certainly never, ever going to show up due to resonances and orbits of classically styled particles like the 'universons'. But they will *totally* show up when kinda bright people look for patterns in weird and artificial data. So like I said: bad sign.

At this point, I stopped reading the paper. Sure, maybe there's something interesting in his color-as-magnetism approach (though as I doubt it), but we hit 'three strikes, you're out' territory. I'm ready to label this 'physics crankery', good/ill intentions of the author notwithstanding.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:17 pm UTC

I think I've been on the internet too long when a good debunking makes me happy the way that did.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

iolco51
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby iolco51 » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:59 pm UTC

Thanks for your very nice review...
I guess you did not not read further than the first paper (which was his very first and the probably the weakest... But one I understood the best) .

I'll try to bring Jacques to this forum, but that could be interresting to digg a little bit.

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:38 pm UTC

Hi everybody,

I am the author of those papers, and I did not know you were discussing those; this is what I think:

1) Forget the first two papers, they are fairly obsolete. The purpose was to check if the universons hypothesis makes sense in a classical manner. It does, but it also has a number of flaws.

2) The two next papers are of interest to understand where it is leading, but not hard-linked to the next ones.

3) At present, the relevant papers are the last two.

4) Predictions are in the last one, they concern:
a) Bosons and top quark masses (where latest CERN publications on the Higgs and top still agree and seem to converge to the masses I find.)
b) The nonexistence of any other resonance. There is nothing more to find in the next LHC run or any future accelerator.
c) The mass spectrum is coherent. This point requires more research to understand "why", of course, but we begin to see "how".

The interest of the results is that, unlike the SM where 18 parameters are free (at least, because it depends on the SM scent and goes over 30 in some cases), or SUSY or string theories (which require a lot more), I find coherence between most of them. It is normal in the SM to get free parameters because gauge theories cannot explain their couplings, and 16 parameters correspond to a specific coupling (one way or another).

Now for those thinking that numerology is irrelevant, I can only agree! But at some point this is a lot of coincidences. So looking at the properties of those numbers, one could find a link with geometry - which, after all, is the basis of the SM.

I hope this helps...
Cheers
Jacques

User avatar
Gammashield
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby Gammashield » Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:18 pm UTC

Well, You could try to bring him by, but honestly, I doubt too much productive could come of it. That's not a knock on him; it's a knock on the structure of forums. It's... really, really hard to build cogent scientific arguments, and build or answer objections to complex scientific topics in forums (or emails, for that matter). It's the kind of thing where I suspect he'd be talking past us, and we'd be talking past him, and building a shared library of terminologies would be difficult, verging on impossible.

And to be fair to the fellow, this *is* a step above a lot of the oddball stuff out there. His actual derivations generally seemed solid and I quickly learned to trust his math: if he said equation A implied B: it did, when i checked. And he's pretty good about labeling and explaining his variables (something i wish more top-tier papers would be good about!),which makes his paper easier to follow than a lot of the weirder papers out there. It's his definitions and interpretations that need watching like a hawk. I actually suspect he's built a fairly self-consistent framework here, though I've certainly not read in-depth enough to prove that. But i find his proofs of consistency with QM *completely* inadequate.

If there's another paper of his that's independent of this universon framework, or that re-derives the Schrodinger equation, that could be worth looking through. But the biggest problem with, well, *all* theory work, is that it's a house of cards that easily collapses if the foundation isn't firm. Even if the man never made an error anywhere in any future paper, if his one proof of consistency with QM is invalid... nothing he does would be consistent with QM.

edit: oop, and a reply from the author himself posted while I was typing things up. Well, fair enough. Haven't looked at the last two papers yet. If they're fairly standalone, then they likely need a separate evaluation. Though, yeah, honestly, skepticism remains high. The Standard Model is not an easy beast to shift. There's a *reason* it's remained the eight hundred pound gorilla for almost fifty years now.

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:45 am UTC

Hi, I want to add one point,

don't be mistaken, I am not trying to kill the SM at all. There is not even a possibility to it, because (almost ?) anything new can be integrated to it. A fifth force, one more symmetry, one more particles generation, almost anything you want. It looks pretty much like the model was initially built with that purpose in mind - which, obviously, was the right thing to do in the 1960s.

Cheers
Jacques

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:57 pm UTC

I think I'll reiterate my previous question to the author then:

If you honestly believe that you have a complete, consistent, purely classical model that can predict the masses of the fundamental particles as good as, or better than, the Standard Model, why isn't this published in Nature or Science? Why aren't you the first in line for the next Nobel Prize? Because that's basically the territory that you're saying you're in.

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:27 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:If you honestly believe that you have a complete, consistent, purely classical model that can predict the masses of the fundamental particles as good as, or better than, the Standard Model, why isn't this published in Nature or Science? Why aren't you the first in line for the next Nobel Prize? Because that's basically the territory that you're saying you're in.

Because not everyone who publishes a research paper proposing a new theory is a crackpot who thinks they've hit upon the finished product all at once? Because some of them are actually just normal, open-minded human beings with traits like humility? :D

(But he can answer for himself, obviously ^^)

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:48 pm UTC

Thanks,

the reason is simple, my next paper was just refused by Phys.Let.B because it is not quantum field, and in their words, their "...readers will not understand my equations...". Nice joke! Nature was more honest: not enough impact expected. A third one (French) did not even respond in 14 weeks.
So I think all those may be just followers, waiting to see how the wind turns, and they may just have lost 50 years in super symmetry and string theories, but still they sell papers. We will see what CERN says in 1 or 2 years. Then maybe it will take another 50 years before someone is desperate enough to look straight into the data. Just take an hour to read the paper titled "Below the Standard Model?". I am sure you will understand easily.

Moreover, to respond completely to your question, I do not predict the mass spectrum, I first show its coherence to all known decimals, and then I can honestly predict the three bosons and the top quarks masses and widths, and also that there is nothing else to find. FYI, the SM does not predict any masses except for the W and Z bosons (as they are redundant with other free parameters).

Cheers
Jacques

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:20 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Because not everyone who publishes a research paper proposing a new theory is a crackpot who thinks they've hit upon the finished product all at once? Because some of them are actually just normal, open-minded human beings with traits like humility? :D

(But he can answer for himself, obviously ^^)


There are plenty of papers in high-ranking journals that describe new ideas even if they are still incomplete or not fully fleshed out. Except on rare occasions, most advancement in the field is done by people making incremental improvements, and then others refining and building off of those ideas. If you can calculate the fundamental particle masses to six or eight significant digits with better accuracy than the Standard Model (to, as the author notes, the extend that the SM is able to predict these things at all), regardless of the model that you use to get there, that represents a pretty significant achievement.

Moreover, to respond completely to your question, I do not predict the mass spectrum, I first show its coherence to all known decimals


I'm not sure what you mean by this. In Table 1 of Below the Standard Model, for example, you have a column with the masses under the heading "calculated" to 6-10 digits of precision. Where did these numbers come from if not from your model? What does coherence to all known decimals mean? Are you saying that you just fitted a bunch of free parameters to the data?

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:45 pm UTC

Yes, I fitted the free parameters to the known leptons masses. This is exactly what I did.
Then to quarks, and then to bosons. The same value of X is used for all types of particles, and this is where it begins to be of interest (though you will probably not like the little k used for bosons; it is partly understood there, and much better in the next paper). The D is also almost the same for quarks; without that, I would not ever have thought of publishing the very first paper. The other interesting point is that the N, P, K are small and multiples for the second and third quarks generations.

Then I study the free parameters. I know no physicist will ever do such empirical thing nowadays, but this is how any model begins.
Think for instance that the atomic energy levels 1/n2 was known before Bohr. Then Bohr came and found a plausible explanation, then de Broglie, then Dirac, Feynmann, etc...
Do you see where it begins? I have no doubts it is a long road, but as far as I know there is nothing else that fits (and I have searched a long time in arxiv and in other places).

Jacques

Tchebu
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:42 am UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby Tchebu » Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:15 pm UTC

don't be mistaken, I am not trying to kill the SM at all. There is not even a possibility to it, because (almost ?) anything new can be integrated to it. A fifth force, one more symmetry, one more particles generation, almost anything you want. It looks pretty much like the model was initially built with that purpose in mind - which, obviously, was the right thing to do in the 1960s.


The SM is not nearly as flexible as you suggest even purely theoretically, but especially combined with experimental constraints.

From pure theory, anomaly cancellation is very restrictive. You can't just throw in any new force/gauge symmetry. The list to choose from is restricted to begin with because most choices of additional symmetries will be broken by quantum corrections (i.e. anomalous). And then on top of that you have to worry that the introduction of this new force won't break the delicate cancellations of said corrections for the already existing forces. There's really not that much you can do to the SM without the whole thing coming apart completely... You can toss in copies of already existing stuff (additional generations of fermions), SUSY-fy it and/or include irrelevant interactions that don't affect the low energy dynamics.

From the experimental side you also have further restrictions on what sorts of things can actually happen. The coupling constants are free parameters of course, but their RG flow isn't and it is very sensitive to the particle content of the theory, making it very hard to change anything while maintaining the vast amount of accurate experimental predictions of the SM across all the observed energy scales.
Our universe is most certainly unique... it's the only one that string theory doesn't describe.

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Sat Nov 29, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

OK, I mean "(almost?) anything new"... that can be found in the unexplored high energy range. The "almost?" was supposed to be funny, just in case something new breaks it.

Jacques

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:00 pm UTC

Hi Randall,

have you read the papers? Or is this thread dead..
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to send me an email if you prefer.

Cheers,
Jacques

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:07 pm UTC

FWIW, Randall does not generally read the forums, and posting here is not a good way to reach him.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby brenok » Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:08 pm UTC

akidbelle wrote:Hi Randall,

have you read the papers? Or is this thread dead..
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to send me an email if you prefer.

Cheers,
Jacques

Given that Randall's last post was on 2009, you're probably out of luck.

User avatar
Dopefish
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby Dopefish » Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:33 pm UTC

I suspect a number of the frequents of this forum are more qualified than Randall to assess the quality of new theories anyway. Randalls certainly a bright guy with a physics background, but there's plenty of physics PhDs and active researchers around these forums who actively explore the boundaries of physics for a living, as opposed to Randall who makes sweet webcomics.

akidbelle
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Re: A new Theory on fundamental physics

Postby akidbelle » Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

Hi, I was pushed here by Loic, and I am not aware of the people of the forum.

Thanks for the update.
Jacques


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests