I meant “this is my understanding of what the mainstream theory, ie, the Standard Model says. In fact, it’s my understanding of what many of the candidate theories that go beyond it say, it’s my understanding of why so many theories are described in terms of their symmetries. Because once one knows their symmetries, one more or less knows the basic structure of the forces it implies. Is this understanding correct, or did I completely miss the point about gauge symmetries and such?”
This is a “history of thought” and high level description of the basic theory and some of its most important implications.
The mis-application of symmetry is key… in fact the Riemann connection is not symmetric...it is anti-symmetric, thus the Einstein field equation is wrong and much collapses from that result. So almost everyone in physics is using the wrong math. Riemann geometry needs to be supplemented. Einstein wasn’t wrong.. he had incredible insights. He just wasn’t totally correct, as even he knew.
Didn’t look all the way through that paper yet, but… if you mean the Riemann curvature tensor having antisymmetric parts… so? How does that kill GR? (besides, anti symmetry is a type of symmetry. I didn’t mean symmetric as in “symmetric vs antisymmetric tensors”, I meant it in the more general sense.)
(Okay, I know of Einstein-Cartan-Theory, but I haven’t studied it yet. I still only have a rudimentary grasp of the math of basic GR)
But… what’s any of this got to do with my original question?
It doesn’t kill GR—it is the foundation. It just adds torsion to curvature, and that changes almost everything. What I am suggesting is that your question is about a theory that is no longer relevant if ECE is correct (which I have come to believe over a number of years). To go deeper, you do have to go do the maths, but they are not that hard.
So I was trying to gently get you to look in a different direction which may have a higher payback for your time, and also predicts that there is no Higgs, which brought me to the blog in the first place. Your choice, of course. Lots of people are invested in the Standard Model.
Huh? Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant “this is my understanding of what the mainstream theory, ie, the Standard Model says. In fact, it’s my understanding of what many of the candidate theories that go beyond it say, it’s my understanding of why so many theories are described in terms of their symmetries. Because once one knows their symmetries, one more or less knows the basic structure of the forces it implies. Is this understanding correct, or did I completely miss the point about gauge symmetries and such?”
What theory are you talking about anyways?
All this becomes superfluous with correct maths. In any case, if the Higgs is NOT found, particle theory as we know it is in trouble. Thats my bet.
And here is a link to a simpler unified theory that may point to the future: http://www.aias.us/documents/miscellaneous/ECE_and_Spacetime.pdf
This is a “history of thought” and high level description of the basic theory and some of its most important implications.
The mis-application of symmetry is key… in fact the Riemann connection is not symmetric...it is anti-symmetric, thus the Einstein field equation is wrong and much collapses from that result. So almost everyone in physics is using the wrong math. Riemann geometry needs to be supplemented. Einstein wasn’t wrong.. he had incredible insights. He just wasn’t totally correct, as even he knew.
Didn’t look all the way through that paper yet, but… if you mean the Riemann curvature tensor having antisymmetric parts… so? How does that kill GR? (besides, anti symmetry is a type of symmetry. I didn’t mean symmetric as in “symmetric vs antisymmetric tensors”, I meant it in the more general sense.)
(Okay, I know of Einstein-Cartan-Theory, but I haven’t studied it yet. I still only have a rudimentary grasp of the math of basic GR)
But… what’s any of this got to do with my original question?
It doesn’t kill GR—it is the foundation. It just adds torsion to curvature, and that changes almost everything. What I am suggesting is that your question is about a theory that is no longer relevant if ECE is correct (which I have come to believe over a number of years). To go deeper, you do have to go do the maths, but they are not that hard.
So I was trying to gently get you to look in a different direction which may have a higher payback for your time, and also predicts that there is no Higgs, which brought me to the blog in the first place. Your choice, of course. Lots of people are invested in the Standard Model.
Well, I think my question about gauge symmetries is more general anyways. Are you claiming a rejection of QFT itself?
yes. http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/example-of-the-antisymmetry-laws/