tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post3939745944876673706..comments2017-10-25T08:36:24.093+01:00Comments on Physics Satire About the Theory of Everything: Why gauge?Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-75284548971028808752016-03-23T13:57:01.644+00:002016-03-23T13:57:01.644+00:00Gauge invariance is since long understood to be ne...Gauge invariance is since long understood to be necessary for having a consistent PoincarĂ© covariant theory of massless particles (see Weinberg). That is the best motivation we have. johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06523031889979043404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-69195937632461342712015-11-10T17:56:19.044+00:002015-11-10T17:56:19.044+00:00"Rovelli adds one meaningless statement after..."Rovelli adds one meaningless statement after the other"... maybe we could start from here. Which statements? Pietronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-76160258191819743102013-09-20T12:20:20.927+01:002013-09-20T12:20:20.927+01:00Sorry, Clara. I looked in Christoph Schiller's...Sorry, Clara. I looked in Christoph Schiller's vol.6 of Motion Mountain, and it turns out that he identifies expansion of space from extended constituents as a puzzle still.<br /><br />Here is my guess then: I remember that matter strands and vacuum strands are all tightly packed together -- they have to be for the interactions to work. Well incessant agigation will make tangles, and tangles are less tightly packed.<br /><br />Imagine a ball of string. If you unravel it, tangle it up a bit, and then gather it up as tightly as you can, it occupies more space than it did when it was a nice neat ball. Maybe that is why space expands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-90134840515799051862013-09-18T12:28:30.340+01:002013-09-18T12:28:30.340+01:00Thanks, Clara. OK I see what you mean. But now it ...Thanks, Clara. OK I see what you mean. But now it makes me think of a new question:<br /><br />If all the incessant agitation is making tangles everywhere all the while, why doesn't it make space want to contract (rather than expand as observation suggests)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-35143659446836502632013-09-18T05:32:22.715+01:002013-09-18T05:32:22.715+01:00Vladimir, please let's stop this. If you think...Vladimir, please let's stop this. If you think that you can do better than the standard model, just do it and compare your calculations with experiment. Before that happens, I do not find your point of view interesting.<br /><br />Anonymous, this is my impression: orbits give so few additional tangling that their effect is negligible.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-23780260517354818842013-09-17T15:50:12.250+01:002013-09-17T15:50:12.250+01:00Clara, I don't think I understand strands too ...Clara, I don't think I understand strands too well. How can the earth orbit the sun without all the strands getting wrapped up around the sun as though it were a great big bobbin?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-22841536880548803292013-09-17T08:23:33.607+01:002013-09-17T08:23:33.607+01:00Dear Clara,
As I said, the "gauge" idea...Dear Clara,<br /><br />As I said, the "gauge" idea is a way to introduce the interaction. But the true interaction contains counter-terms and they do not follow from the "gauge" idea!Vladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-15066052168205330282013-09-17T06:49:28.691+01:002013-09-17T06:49:28.691+01:00Vladimir, QCD, QED and the weak interaction are ga...Vladimir, QCD, QED and the weak interaction are gauge theories. Claiming the opposite reminds me of those people who say that the sun orbits the earth. It is not very interesting to discuss.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-69927108733737072482013-09-17T06:43:19.590+01:002013-09-17T06:43:19.590+01:00Anonymous, maybe this is true, maybe not.Anonymous, maybe this is true, maybe not.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-16788481996104870732013-09-15T13:17:23.028+01:002013-09-15T13:17:23.028+01:00Well, Clara, because of tangling of strands with R...Well, Clara, because of tangling of strands with Reidemeister moves -- but only for U(1), SU(2), and SU(3). Why gauge in general then? No answer because it didn't turn out to be true in general. Trying to apply gauge theory more generally was a very popular idea that didn't work out -- or so it looks from the results from the LHC so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-12875236874279580432013-09-15T11:00:08.290+01:002013-09-15T11:00:08.290+01:00As I said in my first post, people think that CED ...As I said in my first post, people think that CED is a "gauge" theory and construct other theories by analogy. That is why everything is "gauge".<br /><br />But CED is not a gauge theory! If you do not repair the "gauge" CED, it does not work! And after the repair, it is not a gauge theory at all. Renormalization an other repairs make it non "gauge".<br /><br />So "gauge" idea only is a way to introduce an "interaction" that needs further repair badly. Lorentz-Abraham equation with a jerk term does not even have any Lagrangian! As I said, other theories are made by analogy with CED/QED with hope that renormalizations, etc., will help out from the wrong "gauge" way.Vladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-57034548560913617712013-09-15T05:37:27.074+01:002013-09-15T05:37:27.074+01:00Renormalization has no relation to the question &q...Renormalization has no relation to the question "why gauge?" ...Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-6009034296694181792013-09-14T22:45:36.811+01:002013-09-14T22:45:36.811+01:00Well...almost right...
Renormalization should not ...Well...almost right...<br />Renormalization should not be a problem..but still is...<br />The minimum length should solve the issue...but it did not yet...<br />So someone should sit down and do it..it takes time...maybe years...<br />AbrahamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-83768418742800997272013-09-10T10:32:41.788+01:002013-09-10T10:32:41.788+01:00Clara, I think quantum mechanics could actually be...Clara, I think quantum mechanics could actually be thought of as false.<br /><br />Here's why. Every time a experiment refutes a quantum mechanical tenet, the experimenters say, 'Oh that was noise in the instruments,' as though if perfectly noiseless instrumentation could be constructed, there would never be any disagreement.<br /><br />I think this is a clever cheat. That noise could never be eliminated. The perfect instruments required are not just practically impossible to make, I bet they are logically impossible to make as well.<br /><br />So that makes quantum mechanics an idealization that defies the experimental evidence. That is why it is so intuition defying -- because it's not actually true. Not exactly.<br /><br />As soon as you stop disregarding the parts that are conventionally dismissed as noise, it is suddenly possible to make sense out of it.<br /><br />Maybe I have erred again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-81233740834624704562013-09-07T11:24:37.589+01:002013-09-07T11:24:37.589+01:00Clara, I think I understand. At the minimum length...Clara, I think I understand. At the minimum length, measurement isn't just a practical impossibility, it's a logical impossibility (because the uncertainties in the measurements become as big as the universe, rendering measurement into a process that does not yield any information). And Christoph Schiller says, '[...] physical observables are representations of symmetry groups.' -- p68, Vol.6, Motion Mountain. Well if that is true, when there are no measurements, there are no concrete instances of symmetry groups. And if there are no concrete instances of the symmetry groups, you would not formulate a theory in terms of abstract symmetry groups. But even worse, where no measurements are possible, there is nothing to formulate at all, anyway.<br /><br />So the one place you could formulate an exact theory, there is nothing that can be formulated, and in those places you can formulate a theory, complete accuracy of the formulation is impossible. It is like an instance of complementarity: where you could formulate an exact theory, there is nothing to formulate, and where you can formulate a theory, you can only obtain an inexact one.<br /><br />Maybe Yossarian was wrong after all: real catch-22s do exist!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-87496265174331899042013-09-07T10:21:54.306+01:002013-09-07T10:21:54.306+01:00Dear Clara, if a minimum length solved the problem...Dear Clara, if a minimum length solved the problem, then we could formulate our theory without renormalization from the very beginning. But it does not. A minimum length only regularizes theory and makes wrong corrections finite. Renormalization discards these wrong corrections entirely. See http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/1/4/2/index.htmlVladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-90340119158883149272013-09-07T06:22:06.303+01:002013-09-07T06:22:06.303+01:00For me, renormalization is not a problem anyway. A...For me, renormalization is not a problem anyway. And for those for which it is, the minimum length solves the issue.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-10002438751699720192013-09-04T13:05:51.783+01:002013-09-04T13:05:51.783+01:00Dear Abraham and Clara,
You have made me think. A...Dear Abraham and Clara,<br /><br />You have made me think. Abraham, your idea is that renormalization indicates that the equations need to be reformulated (because renormalization is a fudge). Clara, your favourite idea is that U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) can be explained with the three Reidemeister moves (said in a previous blog, if I remember correctly). What if you are both right?<br /><br />When Copernicus formulated the sun-centred universe, he didn't explain the epicycles; rather he revealed how a flawed conception of reality had given results which matched a little with observations (very limited observations).<br /><br />What if the idea of tangling strands only explains how it could have seemed that there are such things as gauge symmetries? What if really they are a little bit like epicycles (though maybe not quite that bad)?<br /><br />Could the tangling of strands (favoured by Clara) be the jumping off point for the reformulation (seen as necessary by Abraham)? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-81336427736580032842013-09-03T15:22:42.557+01:002013-09-03T15:22:42.557+01:00Abraham,
the question is: why U(1), why SU(2), wh...Abraham,<br /><br />the question is: why U(1), why SU(2), why SU(3)? Why gauge symmetry at all? If you prefer, you can answer this question: Why is there one photon, why three weak bosons, why eight gluons? <br /><br />All the rest is idle talk, like Rovelli.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-40704824459623954412013-09-02T11:56:30.084+01:002013-09-02T11:56:30.084+01:00Clara
Gauge theories are a mathematical issue-not ...Clara<br />Gauge theories are a mathematical issue-not a physical one<br />They stem from a variety of mathematical symmetries(namely redundancies)that have a good physical basis as long as we deal with physics that is far away from minimum measurement errors which have a lower limit near QG values(e.g.planck scale values)<br />In eveyday life physics we have always symmetry breaking so perfect symmetry is non-physical ,namely it is only a mathematical abstraction without any experimental evidence.<br />Near Planck scale all symmetries are gone,e.g.even Lorentz invariance disappears.<br />In summary,gauge theories reflect the inability of conventional mathematical practices to properly formulate well established and well corroborated physical laws such as CED,QED,SM,SR,GR etc(all of them being invariant/covariant and ridden with mathematical singularities--physics is never singular)<br />The appropriate necessary mathematical corrections might bring about unification/generalization of physics as a natural result<br /><br />Abraham<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-64841671632608142902013-09-02T07:33:02.817+01:002013-09-02T07:33:02.817+01:00True, but why do gauge theories exist at all?True, but why do gauge theories exist at all?Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-8639098754425343282013-08-28T19:18:18.772+01:002013-08-28T19:18:18.772+01:00I know why gauge: because the first "gauge&qu...I know why gauge: because the first "gauge" theory is Classical Electrodynamics, which works nearly fine - one only needs to do renormalizations and some other "repair" to get meaningful results. So other theories are made by analogy with CED/QED with hope that renormalizations, etc., will help out.Vladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.com