Yes, I’m sure it can all be put together with your SL(4) quite nicely. Recall that SMCs in dimension 4 are not defined without braiding axioms. One needs to account for the complexity in all the low dimensions, starting with a (3,3) picture for dyonic ribbons.

]]>Wow. That’s quite something.

]]>Do you mean neutrino oscillations? I don’t know much about that subject either, but I would be curious to know more about why you think it is relevant. If you already have a post here explaining that, could you point me to it? Thanks

]]>Rob, a starting point for quantum inertia is here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-012-1197-0

The basic idea is to elevate this QI ‘model’ to a fundamental statement about the EW vacuum: mass is generated with a pairing of a local (GUT) scale and an IR neutrino scale. Neutrino mass breaks masslessness for the SM just as a braiding breaks the symmetry of quantum mechanics in symmetric monoidal categories.

Rob, a starting point for quantum inertia is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-012-1197-0

The basic idea is to elevate this QI ‘model’ to a fundamental statement about the EW vacuum: mass is generated with a pairing of a local (GUT) scale and an IR neutrino scale. Neutrino mass breaks masslessness for the SM just as a braiding breaks the symmetry of quantum mechanics in symmetric monoidal categories.

]]>A starting reference for quantum inertia is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-019-3615-z

The basic idea is to replace this QI ‘model’ with a foundational statement about the EW vacuum (ie. neutrinos/gravitons): mass is generated, to first order, through a pairing of local (UV GUT scale) and non local (neutrino IR scale) states (dyons using ribbons in quantum computation). Neutrino mass breaks the masslessness of the SM neutrinos, just as a braiding breaks the symmetry of quantum mechanics in symmetric monoidal categories.

Basic idea explained in https://vixra.org/abs/1712.0076

]]>Marni, can you point me to a good reference where I can find more details about your statement that “MOND can be derived from fundamental principles in particle physics”? My own belief is that it must come somehow out of the properties of neutrinos, and especially neutrino oscillations, but I don’t know enough about this subject to figure out how it works.

]]>Ronald, many theorists firmly believe this, because of the details of the power spectrum (CMB) etc. Their logic tells them that DM simply must be there. The correct answer is that the DOF of DM are there, in the empirical LCDM, but they will never manifest themselves locally as particles in the usual sense. The fact that he is from a so called leading institution does not mean anything.

]]>Yes, I do realise that, and I think your comments are spot on. Meanwhile, I found the potato 18 months ago, after years of searching – but can I get anyone to look at it? No way. No-one believes that potatoes have anything to do with the problem.

]]>Marni:

Well, you may be right, but that is not my experience. Recently I had an email discussion with the primary gravity researcher in the physics department at a major university that is near where I live. Their Physics department is considered to be one of the top in the USA.

None the less, he was surprisingly adamant that Dark Matter is a real thing. To quote: “DM is made up of some combination of black holes and WIMPs” … and .. “MoND is nonsense”. Maybe his view is an aberration, I don’t know, but I do think that MoND has a way to go yet to gain the acceptance that it deserves.I agree that, if viewed objectively, MoND has pretty much won (though a physical theory is still needed). I’m just saying that the needed objectivity may not be as common as we would like, yet.