Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sevensixtwo on 18/08/2013 05:38:32
-
Many of us read the recent Guardian articles by Marcus du Sautoy and Alok Jha that described a potential new 14D geometric ToE. Unlike most ToEs, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction that can verify it or rule it out. CERN is capable of making this measurement with existing equipment. The physics community has been unable to judge the claims directly since they are looking for papers by Weinstein, and there are none. In fact, the theory was developed by another author and Weinstein's contribution has been to popularize the ideas. If you are interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading the first link first.
This article is non-scientific and outlines the development and prominent features of Geometric Unity.
The Truth About Geometric Unity (http://vixra.org/abs/1307.0075)
A new interpretation of time leads to a connection between GR and QM. Einstein's equations and the fine structure constant derived from one simple principle.
Tempus Edax Rerum (http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0010)
The 14D model is presented in detail. A flaw in the ADM positive-definiteness theorem is identified. A major outstanding issue in Kaluza theory is resolved.
Geometric Cosmology (http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0032)
Geometric Unity predicts the structure of the standard model. A unique experimental prediction is made.
Quantum Structure (http://vixra.org/abs/1302.0037)
The features of the theory are treated in a technical, yet qualitative way. A solution to dark energy is proposed.
Dark Energy in M-Theory (http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0077)
-
Let us know what the testable hypotheses are.
-
If the Higgs-like particle discovered in 2012 is a Higgs it will have spin-0. Geometric Unity predicts that it will have spin-1 and that there will be two of them. The smallest prediction for multiple Higgses from a competing theory is five, so Geometric Unity's prediction is totally unique.
-
If the Higgs-like particle discovered in 2012 is a Higgs it will have spin-0.
The spin and parity of the observed Higgs boson are consistent with the Standard Model (http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=240194) (spin 0) compared to all of the alternative models which have been tested.
Geometric Unity predicts that it will have spin-1 and that there will be two of them. The smallest prediction for multiple Higgses from a competing theory is five, so Geometric Unity's prediction is totally unique.
Totally unique and, it would now appear, wrong.
-
Further to dlorde
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1432
and moving this topic to New Theories
-
Further to dlorde
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1432
and moving this topic to New Theories
I assume you only read the title and nothing else in that article. Am I correct? From the abstract:
"The data are compatible with the Standard Model JP = 0+ quantum numbers for the Higgs boson, whereas all alternative hypotheses studied in this letter, namely some specific JP = 0-; 1+; 1-; 2+ models..."
Elsewhere the models of spin-1 used in this study were described as exotic. The data has not been compared to the general case of spin-1 yet. If you were implying that spin-0 is favored generally you are mistaken. It is only favored against "some specific" models of spin-1. Here is what CMS has to say about the general case of spin-1 in Properties of the observed Higgs-like resonance decaying into two photons (http://cds.cern.ch/record/1558930/files/HIG-13-016-pas.pdf):
"The Landau-Yang theorem forbids the direct decay of a spin-1 particle into a pair of photons. Consequently the spin analysis compares the expectation of the spin-0 [standard model] Higgs, and the spin-2 graviton-like model"
I think Ralston puts that into crystal clear context in The Need To Fairly Confront Spin-1 For The New Higgs-like Particle (http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2288)
"The Landau-Yang theorems are inadequate to eliminate spin-1. Theoretical prejudice to close the gaps is unreliable, and a fair consideration based on experiment is needed. A spin-1 field can produce the resonance structure observed in invariant mass distributions, and also produce the same angular distribution of photons and $ZZ$ decays as spin-0. However spin-0 cannot produce the variety of distributions made by spin-1. The Higgs-like pattern of decay also cannot rule out spin-1 without more analysis. Upcoming data will add information, which should be analyzed giving spin-1 full and unbiased consideration that has not appeared before."
Whatever the spin turns out to be in the end, it is true that as of this date no one at CERN has run a complete analysis for the spin of the new particle.
Totally unique and, it would now appear, wrong.
True, but it appears that way because you are only reading the title and not the actual report.
-
Whatever the spin turns out to be in the end, it is true that as of this date no one at CERN has run a complete analysis for the spin of the new particle.
Totally unique and, it would now appear, wrong.
True, but it appears that way because you are only reading the title and not the actual report.
Fair enough - I guess we'll have to wait for more analysis or data. Time will tell.
-
Oh dear! Yet another mystic who shares Laithwaite's blind spot on conservation of momentum. Pity, because Eric's work on linear motors was excellent, and his lectures on matters he did understand, inspirational.
The introduction of the inverse of the golden mean is arbitrary and unexplained. Can you please enlighten me on its sudden appearance?
-
Is this the part that you refer to as unexplained: "Setting D=phi [1] and using the identity..." from the first paragraph on the second page? That numeral one in the hard bracket is what we call a citation. If you look at the end of the paper there is a list of numbers in hard brackets, and the paper next to [1] explains the motivation for phi. I will link the citation here for your convenience.
Dark Energy in M-Theory (http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0077)
You also seemed to have missed that using phi as an input was the hypothesis in this research. Since the result derived by assuming the hypothesis was good, we have good reason to suspect the hypothesis is valid. (Hypotheses are purely exploratory and do not require motivation; however, in this case there was motivation, per the cited paper.) Thanks for your interest.
-
Citing your own work, within which we find the bizarre and unsubstantiated phrase
Nature seems to suggest an obvious choice of ratio.
l+ = (1 + √5)/2
is neither proof nor justification.
-
is neither proof
Since the result derived by assuming the hypothesis was good, we have good reason to suspect the hypothesis is valid.
nor justification.
Hypotheses are purely exploratory and do not require motivation.