The spaghetti model seems all ok at first sight. But that is not all the story. Look at the old question why protons and positrons have the same electric charge. In the spaghetti model, charge is a topological quantity. Ok, let's assume that the topology argument is correct. But why then is the fine structure constant the same for electrons and protons?
Look at the model. It will not take you much to see that this question is not answered anywhere. In fact, the fine structure constant is not calculated, so far. Nobody can check whether the full charges of protons and positrons are equal.
Let me be even more specific. Schiller writes that the fine structure constant is the probability for seeing a Reidemeister I move. Ok, this may be so, but why is that probability the same for protons and for positrons? The tangles for the two particles differ and the number of strands/spaghetti differ! This is a problem. In my view, there is no good answer to the question. Why should the probabilities be equal?
24 May 2011
22 May 2011
The quark spaghetti model
Spaghetti explain the quark model, claims Schiller. It is a strong claim; not even Bilson-Thompson makes this claim with his band model. Lets look at this in more detail.
The quark model is a way to describe all hadrons with a small number of constituents: with 6 quarks and 6 antiquarks. The spaghetti model proposes a tangle for each quark and then claims that these tangles reproduce all hadrons. Schiller indeed provides the tangles for most hadrons: he draws the tangles for the best-known mesons and baryons. He claims that the tangles explain quark confinement, asymptotic freedom, CP violation, and the mass sequence of all hadrons. Wait! Several Nobel prizes were awarded for these results. And we can understand them with a few drawings? If it is true, Gell-Mann and his entourage will turn yellow. If it is wrong, we can make fun of Schiller.
How can we check such a claim? We take the review of particle physics by the particle data group and check all of it against the strand model. I'll start tomorrow.
The quark model is a way to describe all hadrons with a small number of constituents: with 6 quarks and 6 antiquarks. The spaghetti model proposes a tangle for each quark and then claims that these tangles reproduce all hadrons. Schiller indeed provides the tangles for most hadrons: he draws the tangles for the best-known mesons and baryons. He claims that the tangles explain quark confinement, asymptotic freedom, CP violation, and the mass sequence of all hadrons. Wait! Several Nobel prizes were awarded for these results. And we can understand them with a few drawings? If it is true, Gell-Mann and his entourage will turn yellow. If it is wrong, we can make fun of Schiller.
How can we check such a claim? We take the review of particle physics by the particle data group and check all of it against the strand model. I'll start tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)