My HUT is your HUT. Beiti beitak. Welcome. Ahlan wa sahlan. Make yourself at home. Let me show you around. There isn’t much to see, but I think you’ll be impressed at how much I have managed to fit into a finite space.
First let me show you the framework: the 8 Gell-Mann matrices in the 8 corners of the room. I wrote them down explicitly for you in three dimensions in the previous post. Each of them is multiplied by three scalars represented by the beams and joists that hold the 8 corners of the HUT together. Add in my identity, and you get a group of order 27 that is the scaled-down essence of the Standard Model SU(3). But there is no need for all that S+M, just have a cup of tea: 27 tea-leaves should make a nice refreshing drink.
Next let me show you the walls. Standing in the front door, you can see three of them: the Pauli matrices. But they are mathematicians’ Pauli matrices, not physicists’ – they generate the quaternion group of order 8: three walls, top and bottom, and my identity, here at the front door to welcome you. This is the scaled-down essence of the Standard Model SU(2). But there is no need for all that S+M,just have a cup of coffee: 8 coffee beans should make a nice refreshing drink.
Have you noticed how the 8 corners (Gell-Mann matrices) are related to the 3 walls (Pauli matrices)? Isn’t it really simple and functional? Do you see how it makes the HUT stand up, instead of being a pile of bits and pieces, like the Standard Model, looking like an earthquake has hit it? Do you see how, instead of a direct product SU(2) x SU(3) as in the Standard Model, the frame and the walls act together to create a structure, a model HUT that one can live in?
Now look at the roof. A single structure, with three layers, to keep out the rain. No frills, just one matrix with three scales. In the Standard Model it’s called U(1), but in essence what is important is the three layers. Without the three layers, it is very hard to understand the three generations of fermions in the Standard Model. But no need for all that S+M, just have a glass of whisky: a triple shot of single malt will do nicely, thank you very much.
Have you noticed how the roof is joined to the walls? Not SU(2) x U(1) as in the Standard Model, but fixed together to make a structural whole? Not mixed together at a ridiculous `mixing angle’ as in the Standard Model, that changes as the wind blows, but fixed together properly so it is rigid and doesn’t move. So can you now see the beautiful simplicity of my HUT, that has everything you require, and nothing more? Frame, walls and roof. That is all.
It has the essence of SU(3) and SU(2) and U(1), triple-distilled and triple-filtered into a finite group, of order 27 x 8 x 3 = 648. It has a group of order 27 generated by (slightly modified) Gell-Mann matrices, a group of order 8 generated by (slightly modified) Pauli matrices, and a group of order 3 generated by (slightly modified) scalars on top. The Pauli matrices act on the Gell-Mann matrices to create a quark-mixing matrix and a lepton-mixing matrix, and the (unnamed) matrices on the top act on everything so that three generations can live under one roof.
For those who are technically minded, and want the full spec, this group of order 648 is the full unitary group of 3×3 unitary matrices written over the field of order 4. But the generators I have given you can also be interpreted as unitary matrices over the complex numbers, by mapping the four elements of the finite field to 0, 1 and the two primitive cube roots of 1. So now you can measure everything with real and complex numbers, work out the dimensions, cut everything to size, weigh everything, measure the angles, and build you own Standard Model to your own specifications.
But don’t forget – it is the finite symmetry group that tells you how to fit the walls to the frame, and the roof to the walls and the frame. You can’t do that with SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1).
January 6, 2024 at 10:10 am |
I like the sound of your HUT. You’ve had thought that everybody would want one. But it appears that they can’t see it because the S(hiny) M(ansion) gets in the way, even though it’s clearly falling down. So how can you put your HUT in front of the Shiny Mansion so that a sense of perspective can block out the pile of rubble behind it?
January 6, 2024 at 10:40 am |
Let’s call it a Splendid Mansion, to flatter the architects and builders, not to mention the thousands of people who live and work in it. Let’s not call it a Stupid Mess (which is what it really is), or a Scrap Merchant’s (which is what it is about to become).
January 6, 2024 at 10:46 am |
Let’s not remind them how quickly the twin towers of the World Theory Centre (electro-weak theory and quantum chromodynamics) could turn into twisted piles of Scrap Metal. Nor how many thousands of people could lose their live(lihood)s in the process.
January 6, 2024 at 10:27 am |
[…] Wilson today has a new post up: “Welcome to my Humble Unified Theory”, https://robwilson1.wordpress.com/2024/01/06/welcome-to-my-humble-unified-theory/ where he points out that the three 2 x 2 Pauli matrices (in other words, three small tables of two […]
January 6, 2024 at 4:44 pm |
If you are interested in GUTs rather than HUTs, then you are presumably interested in Lie groups rather than finite groups, as most physicists are. Then probably the only finite groups you are interested in are Weyl groups of Lie groups. The groups I am talking about are not Weyl groups. But the group of order 648 described here is a subgroup of the Weyl group of E_6. Hence you can build a GUT of type E_6 out of my HUT if you want.
GUTs of type E_6 do exist in the literature, but they do not contain my HUT. The reason is simple: the people who build these GUTs do not understand how the three generations work, and they do not understand that electron generations and neutrino generations are different concepts. So these E_6 GUTs can contain three colours, or they can contain three generations, but they cannot contain both. I could explain to them how to modify the model to contain both, but they would only shout at me and insult me, so I’m not even going to try.
January 6, 2024 at 5:00 pm |
In fact, you can use this relationship to E_6 to construct another group, of order 2^7=128, generated by 27 elements of order 2, thereby extending the series 1+3+8 of the standard model to 1+3+8+27+128. Then you get a group of order 128 x 27 x 8 x 3. You might think that this group might embed in the Weyl group of E_8, and hope to build an E_8 GUT out of it. But it doesn’t. And there’s nothing in the Standard Model to suggest that this group has anything to tell us about physics anyway.
January 6, 2024 at 8:26 pm |
What’s that? You want a floor as well as four walls and a roof? We don’t need it: my HUT is built directly on the bedrock of mathematics. You can’t get more secure than that.
January 7, 2024 at 1:42 am |
How does this compare to the tetrion model? Is everything now a representation of this bigger group U(3,F_4), rather than just the binary tetrahedral group?
January 7, 2024 at 8:33 am |
Yes, it would seem so. But since U(3,F_4) has the binary tetrahedral group as a quotient, all the representations of the latter go through to become lepton representations in the bigger model. The faithful representations are a complex 3 times the binary tetrahedral representations, so give all the quark representations. The only other representations are a real 8 (presumably gluons) and a complex 8 (perhaps a meson octet).
The R + C splitting and the H + M_2(C) splitting that distinguish neutrinos from electrons don’t really apply to quarks, where we just get C^3 + C^3 + C^3 in the vector part, so there are no massless (real) quarks, I suppose, in contrast to the massless real leptons.
I don’t suppose we will want to use the whole 648-dimensional algebra, but in principle we might. For gluon-gluon interactions, for example, is SU(3) sufficient, or do we need its embedding in SO(8) or M_8(R)? I don’t know the answer to that. Or do we need this for GL(4,R) and gravity? Using gluons as gravitons
might be more acceptable than using neutrinos, anyway. Also, the model seems to imply that neutrinos do interact with gluons – and that neutrino oscillations are the experimental evidence for this.
Anyway, it solves the problem of trying to use U(1) x SL(3,R) instead of SU(3) for the strong force, which you flagged up as a problem years ago and has worried me from the very beginning.
There’s lots of detail to work out, of course, so I may go quiet for a while to do this.
January 10, 2024 at 12:52 pm |
As I’m working through the details, I have begun to realise that not only can I unify the Gell-Mann matrices for SU(3) with the Pauli matrices for SU(2) and scalars of order 3 for U(1), but even the Dirac matrices fit into the same scheme. Thus I can effectively quantise spacetime at the same time as everything else. The representations now seem to be superfluous to requirements, except for the purpose of linking quantum physics to classical physics. But the group itself now has order 82944, and is quite complicated to work with.
On the other hand, this is a group I know well, and studied in detail in the only paper I ever managed to get into Inventiones Mathematicae (1987). Well, to be perfectly honest, there are three 4-dimensional quaternionic reflection groups here, called S_1, S_2 and S_3 by Cohen (who classified them). My 1987 paper studies the largest one (S_3), but here we need only S_2 for the Standard Model.
No doubt there will be people interested in the S_3 case, as this gives a type of E_6 GUT, but let’s get the Standard Model sorted out first.
January 10, 2024 at 10:47 pm |
On second thoughts, I am getting carried away by the beauty of the mathematics here, and am in danger of losing sight of the physical goal. This way string theory lies.
January 18, 2024 at 6:42 pm
…in the direction of the Pointless Forest
and as the Pointed Man at the Forest entrance pointed out, “a point in every direction is the same as no point at all.”
January 18, 2024 at 6:50 pm
And that “a point in an imaginary direction is also the same as no point at all.”
January 18, 2024 at 6:57 pm
There is no point of return, there is only a point of no return.
January 18, 2024 at 7:00 pm
In the Pointless Landscape of String Theory, all the Strings have Pointed Ends, but that doesn’t make it any less Pointless.
January 18, 2024 at 7:18 pm
The point of a string
Is tying a thing
But sometimes it knots
and tangle you gots
January 18, 2024 at 7:27 pm
In knots you are mired
and cutting’s required
to free you of strings
and loops and such things
January 18, 2024 at 7:33 pm
if the universe were indeed made of strings, everything would long ago have been hopelessly knotted into a massive ball.
And clearly, everything isnt so the universe can’t be made of strings.
QED
January 18, 2024 at 7:36 pm
it’s the First Law of String Dynamics (which every four year old knows)
January 18, 2024 at 7:36 pm
A knot’s a thing,
A string is not.
January 18, 2024 at 7:39 pm
Just cut the Gordian knot, and you will rule all physics.
January 18, 2024 at 7:54 pm
First Law of String Dynamics: when left to themselves, strings individually and collectively always tend toward greater knottedness.
when have you ever had a shoe string, garden hose, extension cord or other stringy thing that NEVER became knotted AND (critically) that , once knotted, spontaneously UNtangled itself?
I rest my case.
January 18, 2024 at 8:06 pm
The knot’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the nottiness of the string.
January 18, 2024 at 8:07 pm
Theoretical physics, by tying itself for decades to string theory, has tied itself in a Gordian knot, which no-one can untie. We must take our lessons from history, and learn from Alexander. The Gordian knot cannot be untied, so it must be cut.
Mainstream physics is only interested in theories of how to untie the Gordian knot. I too worked for years with experts in the field trying to untie the knot. Until it gradually dawned on me that it could not be untied. That’s when I got out my sword and started slashing at it.
Many times I thought, surely by now the knot must be cut through, but the oxcart remained stubbornly attached. But now I can see the oxcart slowly beginning to move under the force of gravity. Gravity is a weak force, so it may take some time for anyone to notice, but that Gordian knot is cut, and that oxcart is on the move.
January 18, 2024 at 8:09 pm
Did you say “the naughtiness of the string”?
January 18, 2024 at 8:12 pm
Naughty, naughty string!
Even a four-year-old can understand that!
January 18, 2024 at 8:13 pm
First Law of String Dynamics : Over time, a Stringyverse tends toward greater knotropy
January 18, 2024 at 8:19 pm
Isn’t that the Second Law? I thought the First Law was that when money is pumped into a Stringyverse it gets hotter, and when money is pumped out it gets colder.
January 18, 2024 at 8:21 pm
and not incidentally, more physical dimensions than 3 just means more knot possibilities.
January 18, 2024 at 8:22 pm
knot incidentally, too
January 18, 2024 at 8:23 pm
By “knot possibilities”, do you mean impossibilities?
January 18, 2024 at 8:29 pm
How about this proof: strings imply many possible knots, and each of these (k)not possibilities is ipso facto impossible. Therefore strings are impossible.
January 18, 2024 at 8:29 pm
I’m not sure about the labeling of the laws but I do know that once the stringyverse has reached its maximum knottiness, all strings stop vibrating and it is known as Knotdeath
January 18, 2024 at 8:30 pm
Or why do I even need to make it so complicated? “Strings are knot possibilities.”
January 18, 2024 at 8:57 pm
Robert’s (K)nottiness Theorem?
January 18, 2024 at 9:15 pm
Knot so much a Theorem as a Taut-ology.
January 18, 2024 at 9:15 pm
String Nonexistence Proof
If world were made of strings
The world would be a knot
But since we know it’s not
It’s made of other things
January 18, 2024 at 9:19 pm
Wilson’s Not Theorem – I’ve had a few of those, over the years.
January 18, 2024 at 9:20 pm
or a knotology
January 18, 2024 at 9:23 pm
There is a flaw in your argument – we know the world is well and truly knotted.
January 18, 2024 at 9:26 pm
make that “String Knotexistence Proof”
January 18, 2024 at 9:28 pm
A Thing
Is not
A String
Or Knot
January 18, 2024 at 9:30 pm
so, did I just actually prove that strings exist?
where’s my Nobel Prize?
January 18, 2024 at 9:40 pm
proof by contracontradiction
January 18, 2024 at 9:41 pm
To be or knot to be, that is the question,
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The strings and arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of models,
And by opposing end them.
January 18, 2024 at 9:43 pm
proof by notaknotradiction
January 18, 2024 at 9:57 pm
Proof by addictio ad absurdum.
January 18, 2024 at 10:09 pm
Your Nobel prize is waiting in the sky,
He’d like to come and meet us,
But he thinks he’d blow our minds.
Your Nobel prize is waiting in the sky,
He told us not to blow it,
‘Cause he knows it’s all worthwhile.
January 18, 2024 at 11:24 pm
Assympknotic Freedom
If world is knot
Then asymptot-
ic freedom’s not
A valid plot
January 18, 2024 at 11:33 pm
on the other hand
If asymptot-
ic freedom’s true
then world is not
a knotted stew
January 18, 2024 at 11:40 pm
argumentum poetico ad absurdum
January 18, 2024 at 11:59 pm
asymptknotic Freedom (2)
If naught
is free
of knot,
you see,
then asymptot-
ic “freedom”’s not
and assympknot
is what you’ve got
January 19, 2024 at 12:04 am
Make that “argumentum doggerelico ad absurdum”
January 19, 2024 at 12:14 am
if world is not a knot
it can not be of strings
cuz strings are all we’ve got
to make a knot of things
January 19, 2024 at 12:41 pm
advice from Cat Stevens to the string theorist:
take your time
think a lot
think of everything you’ve got
for you will still be here tomorrow
but your strings may not
January 19, 2024 at 1:21 pm
but your strings may knot
January 19, 2024 at 1:42 pm
The Edwardian Knot
Edward’s knot
Can not be cut
Untied — not!
He’s in a rut
The M is not
For “mystery”
But “Mega-knot”
We never see
January 19, 2024 at 2:48 pm
The Edwardian knot – that’s brilliant. I can see the title of my next paper now – who am I kidding, the title of my next blog post – “Cutting the Edwardian knot”.
January 19, 2024 at 3:00 pm
To string, perchance to knot. Aye there’s the rub.
For in that sleep of strings, what knots may come
When we have shuffled off this Standard Model,
Must give us pause. There’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long a string,
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of arXiv,
The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
etc etc.
January 19, 2024 at 3:09 pm
When I was young (13 or 14) my English teacher wrote at the bottom of an essay I wrote (I think it was about Julius Caesar) “Don’t be contumacious”. Well, I am not sorry to say, I am still as contumacious now as I was then. As you may have noticed. I think if that teacher were still alive, and reading my blog, he would repeat that comment from more than 50 years ago.
January 19, 2024 at 3:22 pm
I’d say you are “contumathscious”
or maybe “consumathscious” is more apt
January 19, 2024 at 3:27 pm
which makes you either a contumathematician or a consumathematician (or perhaps both)
January 19, 2024 at 3:39 pm
By chance, was your teacher’s comment a response to your unwillingness to render unto Caesar the strings that were Caesar’s?
January 19, 2024 at 3:44 pm
Render unto Edward, the strings that are Edward’s and unto God, the groups that are God’s,
January 19, 2024 at 4:08 pm
SU(3), 3 generations, The Holey Trinity.
coincidence?
I think knot
January 19, 2024 at 4:21 pm
The Father, the SU(N) and the Holey GUTs
January 19, 2024 at 4:29 pm
Oh GOD I can’t stand any more, please make it STOP!
January 19, 2024 at 4:49 pm
SUrely
knot a problem
January 12, 2024 at 3:15 pm |
Some details are not quite right above, as I work through it all. The group I need is not a reflection group, but it is contained in a reflection group that I studied in detail in my PhD thesis, and in a paper published in 1983.
I have now written down all the Dirac, Gell-Mann and Pauli matrices, as well as the generation symmetries, and got them all to act on a quaternionic 4-spinor – that is nothing more than a quaternionic version of the standard complex Dirac spinor. So I now have all the combinatorial structure of the Standard Model, plus 3 generations, acting on this spinor. The important thing is that the group is a semidirect product, not a direct product, which allows all the necessary mixing between the different forces to take place.
The continuous structure, and all the SM parameters, come from looking at representations (real, complex or quaternionic, as appropriate) of the finite group. The spinor itself has about 15 or 16 arbitrary real parameters in it. We need a few more for the complete SM, but I have drawn attention to a number of relations between these parameters, so it may not be necessary to have the full 24 that is normally assumed.
But I think the other representations give about 5 complex parameters (9 to 11 real), so there seem to be enough in any case. There seem to be just four important representations, from which all the rest can be derived by straightforward methods. These are (1) a complex 1-space acted on by Z_3, (2) a quaternionic 1-space acted on by Q_8 (implementing Pauli matrices), (3) a complex 3-space acted on by a group of order 27 (implementing Gell-Mann matrices) and (4) a quaternionic 4-space acted on by a group of order 128 (implementing Dirac matrices for 3 generations).
In the tetrions papers, I found one SM parameter in (1), and three more in (2). This suggests there are 5 more in (3), and 15 in (4), making 24 in all. Just about right, I think.
January 17, 2024 at 10:38 pm |
A first attempt to explain how I think this all fits together mathematically is in https://robwilson1.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/pgm2.pdf. Clearly there’s a lot more work to do, and errors to correct, but it shows you the gist of what I’m now thinking.
January 7, 2024 at 10:05 am |
“What’s that? You want a floor as well as four walls and a roof? We don’t need it: my HUT is built directly on the bedrock of mathematics. You can’t get more secure than that.”
The wise man built his house upon the rock; the foolish man built his house upon the sand and has been putting more and more elaborate paper over the cracks ever since.
January 7, 2024 at 12:21 pm |
Founderations of Physics
Physicists have built
A house on sand and silt
Bound with tiny strings
And other mathy things
But Nature hates a fake
And proves it with a quake
That causes many cracks
Which point to basic facts
Note:
“Cracks which point to facts” were originally know as “crackpointers” which got shortened to just “crackpoints” but somewhere along the way the “in” was dropped and the term took on a totally new meaning.
January 7, 2024 at 2:39 pm
“Snookered”
A crackpot is in fact
A crack who pots the facts.
January 7, 2024 at 2:46 pm
A quackpot on the other hand
Built his castle of strings on the sand
Quacked all day and quacked all night
In a futile attempt to prove he was right.
January 7, 2024 at 3:14 pm
What’s in a pot, that which we say is crack, in any other pot would smell as weed?
January 7, 2024 at 3:35 pm
Hark at the pot calling the kettle crack.
January 7, 2024 at 3:09 pm |
When the earthquake happened
And the castle was flattened,
The architect started to drown.
At the last he was heard to say,
As the tsunami washed him away,
“It’s still the best game in the town”.
January 7, 2024 at 3:27 pm |
“RIP Tides”
When only game in town
Is “tread until you drown”
It’s not a game you win
No matter how you swim
January 7, 2024 at 3:41 pm
Make that “RIP TOEs”
January 7, 2024 at 3:48 pm
The Emperor has no TOEs.
January 7, 2024 at 3:54 pm |
Everybody knows
The Emperor has no TOEs.
Why tie ourselves in string
To deny this obvious thing?
January 8, 2024 at 12:57 am |
“Spacetime is Right-footed”
The Emperor says “right”
Is TOE that’s in his sight
But everybody knows
That NEW are right-foot TOEs
January 8, 2024 at 8:18 am
Surely Woit-foot TOEs?
January 8, 2024 at 8:31 am
Spacetime is right-handed, my foot!
Rot, up with which I won’t put!
Such chirality
Is pure hilarity.
The truth is plain in my HUT.
January 8, 2024 at 8:50 am
As SuperTramp (remember SuperTramp?) presciently sang way back in the 70’s
“Woit , Woit, you’re bloody well Woit, you got a bloody Woit to say”
January 8, 2024 at 9:06 am
Of TOEs and Feet
The TOE is Woit
And foot is too
And turns to right
Like Woit-hand screw
It’s quoite a feat
This TOE of Woit
That’s quoite effete
At spinning voit
January 8, 2024 at 12:40 pm
That’s quoite replete
With spinning voit”
woit be better
January 8, 2024 at 12:59 pm
…moight be better.
January 8, 2024 at 1:00 pm
…shoed be better.
Or is the boot on the other foot?
January 8, 2024 at 1:07 pm
Between the ages of 10 and 16 I had a violin teacher who was addicted to making outrageous puns. I obviously learnt something from him, even if it wasn’t what I was supposed to be learning.
January 8, 2024 at 1:43 pm
Even if it wasn’t woit you should have been learning, it woit have been better if he — and you — had focused on violin
January 8, 2024 at 1:54 pm
But you are roight
One can’t avoit
That moight makes Woit
January 10, 2024 at 11:57 pm |
At the end of the day it is the 1+3+8 structure of the Standard Model U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) that needs explaining. No GUT can ever do that. No string theory can ever do that. But my HUT can do that.
One cube. Three walls mixed with floor, door and roof. Eight corners of the cube. Is this just clever nonsense trying to relate unrelated occurrences of the same numbers in different contexts?
Yes, of course it is. Obviously it is nonsense. This is an allegory, not physics, not mathematics. This is not how my HUT explains 1+3+8. My HUT is not a hut, it is a mathematical model, and I hope one day it will become a physical theory as well.
Mathematically, it explains 1+3+8. Let’s hope that it can one day explain 1+3+8 physically as well.
January 11, 2024 at 11:18 am |
Woit you say
has wing of twuth
Symmetway
is hacked, foresooth
January 11, 2024 at 11:23 am |
Is crossed, foresooth” woit be better
January 11, 2024 at 11:48 am |
“Doted i’s and crossed symmeTries”
They dote on “i’s”
And string their g’s”
and also cross their symmeTries”
But Nature doesnt give a hoot
about inane Nobel pursuit
January 11, 2024 at 1:27 pm |
Oh dear, I was hoping to avoid any discussion of right wings and left wings. It is however hard to avoid discussing right rings and left rings. Woit puts his internal symmetries into the left ring, and his spacetime symmetries into the right ring, as do I. If you insist on calling the latter the “Woit wing”, there’s isn’t much I can do about it, short of censorship. But I’d rather not sink to Woit’s level.
January 11, 2024 at 1:42 pm |
The same goes for G strings, although every violin must have a G string, of course. My theories are discrete, so instead of continuous strings, they have discrete chains. Since G always stands for group in my subject, instead of G strings I have group chains. This is my specialist subgroup, I mean specialist subject, that is subgroups, so I’ll tell you more about it in due course. I’ve just managed to construct a chain of four groups, one for each of the four fundamental forces, which finally permits the construction of a quantum theory of gravity that mixes with all the other forces.
It unifies the Dirac matrices, the Gell-Mann matrices, the Pauli matrices and the triangle (3 generations) into a single group that mixes them all up into a gigantic particle soup. So now I have not only a left ear and a right ear, but a final front ear as well. I suppose I’m now going to have to read some poems about Woit ears.
January 12, 2024 at 12:38 am
soft, woit hand through yonder symmetry breaks? It is the right and Spacetime is the spun
January 12, 2024 at 1:23 pm
Stopping by Woits on a Screwy evening
whose Woit’s these are
I think I know
His blog is on the blog roll though
he will not let me comment here
to criticize his Woit hand show
I’m blocked, of course
and think it queer
That Woit will only ever hear
the echo of his twisted take
the strangest theory of the year
he gives his blogging hand a shake
and asks if there is some mistake
the only other sounds the sheep
Incessant whines ‘bout physics flake
the Woits are handed, right and [bleep]
but I have promises to keep
and poems to write before I sleep
and poems to write before I sleep
January 12, 2024 at 1:30 pm
With all due respect to Robert Frost, of course
wouldn’t wish to plagiarize like ChatGPT
January 12, 2024 at 8:45 am |
Arise, fair spin, and kill the envious string,
Who is already sick and pale with grief.
January 12, 2024 at 12:07 pm
The string’s the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience* of the King**
Some Stringspearean experts believe it was a typo and Stringspeare actually meant “constants”
**King Edward
Here’s a string. “Out damned string! Out! I say (Leedy Macsmolin)
January 12, 2024 at 12:26 pm
”To string, or not to string — THAT is the question”
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the strings and branes of outrageous theories
Or to take arms against a sea of Troubles [With Physics]
And by opposing end them….
— From Smolin’s silliloquy
January 12, 2024 at 12:39 pm
“To loop, or not to loop” Woit probably be better
January 11, 2024 at 9:27 pm |
For whom Nobel tolls
It tolls for dubya’s and for Z’s
and also for some symmetries
But Nobel never tolls for groups
Or strings or other quantum loops
January 11, 2024 at 9:30 pm |
And never tolls for any soups
January 11, 2024 at 9:32 pm
tough luck
January 11, 2024 at 9:43 pm |
Never send to know for whom no Nobel tolls; no Nobel tolls for thee.
January 11, 2024 at 9:49 pm |
Instead of giving prizes for physics, Nobel should have given them some dynamite.
January 12, 2024 at 12:09 am |
Dynamite Designs”
He built his house with dynamite
With lots and lots of sticks
He thought “if ever I’ve to fight”
“it’s better than the bricks”
Cuz I can grab a stick to throw”
If enemies attack
And dynamite is set to blow
In front and in the back”
January 12, 2024 at 2:45 pm |
Woits, Smolins, physicists, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Strings, not to praise them.
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with Strings. The noble Smolin
Hath told you Stringies were ambitious.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously have Stringies answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Smolin and the rest –
For Smolin is an honourable man –
So are they all, all honourable men –
Come I to speak at Stringy’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me,
But Smolin says he was ambitious,
And Smolin is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Princeton,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Strings seem ambitious?
etc etc
January 12, 2024 at 3:44 pm |
A TOE, a TOE. My Spacetime for a TOE.
January 12, 2024 at 3:49 pm
There are more strings in heaven and earth, Robert, than are dreamt of in your fullofsophy
January 12, 2024 at 3:56 pm
Double, double physics Trouble
Tiny string and braney bubble.
Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
January 12, 2024 at 4:34 pm
Now is the Witten of our discontent. Made glorious twistor by this hand of Woit
January 12, 2024 at 4:36 pm
ok, I’ll stop now.
promise (and unlike last time and the time before that, I really mean it)
January 13, 2024 at 1:33 pm |
“Reality is Really Real”
Space and time are real
They’re NOT imaginary
It’s NOT just how I feel
It’s NOT confabulary
To Wick rotate the lot
Is naught but mathy trick
That changes what you’ve got
From healthy TOE to sick
January 13, 2024 at 1:47 pm |
Here we go again…(!)
I’ve got the HUMPP (Hierarchical Unified Model of Particle Physics).
January 13, 2024 at 2:56 pm |
Wick rotation sounds vaguely obscene – though I suppose it depends what you dip your wick into.
January 13, 2024 at 3:55 pm |
I was being serious but you are dragging it back into the GUTter
January 13, 2024 at 4:05 pm
The Wick Position
To rotate like Wick
Is done with an “i”
and NOT with a _ick
In GUTter with guy
January 13, 2024 at 4:18 pm
Both “Wick rotation” and “_ick rotation” contain an “i” and are graphic but that is where the similarity ends.
or at least, should be
January 13, 2024 at 8:04 pm |
January 13, 2024 at 8:15 pm
I have an irresistible urge to mention the Boyg at this point. If you know the story of Peer Gynt, you will recognise the unmistakable feeling of being thwarted by something big and shapeless that doesn’t fight, but just gets in your way and ignores you.
January 14, 2024 at 2:04 pm
The Boyg”
Nature is the Boyg
That stands in human’s way
No one can avoid
Or keep the Boyg at bay
January 14, 2024 at 2:10 pm
The Boyg is not impressed
By TOEs and other stuff
If Boyg is not addressed
They aren’t up to snuff
January 14, 2024 at 2:30 pm
I can tell you, my love for TOEs will still be strong, after the Boygs of summer are gone
January 13, 2024 at 10:21 pm |
that ain’t woickin
that’s the way you do it
you play your GUTar on your TOE
that ain’t woickin
that’s the way you do it
quantum for nothin and your gravity
we got some installed microwave background, custom Kelvins, three degrees,
we got some very big accelerators, we got some bosons, LHCs
January 13, 2024 at 11:02 pm |
look at them theorists
that’s the way you do it
them guys ain’t dumb
maybe get a blister on their right-hand finger
maybe get a blister on their thumb
January 14, 2024 at 12:59 pm
maybe get a blister on their mousing finger
maybe get a blister on their bum”
woit probably be better
January 14, 2024 at 1:29 pm
the physics theorist with the theorem that he’s made up?
yeah, buddy, that’s his “No Hair”
the physics theorist got his own equation
the physics theorist he’s a millionaire!
January 14, 2024 at 2:49 pm |
I haven’t used GUT Strings on my Woilin since the 1970s. Since the First String Revolution, the Dominant “industry Standard” model has dominated the market, though a few diehards still swear by GUT. The E (electron) String has been made of steel as Standard for more than a century, but requires Fine-Tuning. The other Strings are also sometimes made with a Twisted metal core, but they also require Fine Tuners. Old-fashioned Peg-rows tuners Twist too much (that’s why Peg-rows is synonymous with Twistors).
Nowadays, Woilin Strings are generally made with an artificial silk Nucleus (for Strength) and a metal winding (for Mass). They have much better Decay Modes than GUT. The G (Dirac Gamma) and D (Gell-Mann Lambda) Strings form the foundation, but unfortunately are often labelled the wrong way round. In fact the Gamma matrices describe the G (Gravity) string, which forms the foundation for everything, while the Gell-Mann (or Gravitational-Mass) matrices describe the D (Dignity) string, which ensures that naked quark Colours are never seen in public, and ensures that the proton has far more Gravity (and Dignity) than its Quarks.
The A (Alphabet) string is what you need for Alpha and Beta decay, and the E (electromagnetic) string speaks for itself.
January 15, 2024 at 2:15 pm
The Naked Truth”
Naked quarks are never seen
How convenient — they’re obscene
Thankfully, the Nobel prize
will keep them from the virgin eyes
January 15, 2024 at 2:33 pm
You cannot see the quarks (in colour) but you can feel them. They make their presence felt, as you might say.
January 15, 2024 at 2:35 pm
“Assnymphtotic Freedom”
Assnymphtotic freedom rules
Nymphs in action, ‘hind the walls
Thankfully, the curtain’s drawn
Else, we’d see them on the lawn
January 15, 2024 at 2:41 pm
Asymphonic freedom is what Woilins get when they play triplets very close together.
January 15, 2024 at 2:46 pm
Colour confinement is what happens when Woilins squawk too loudly, and society (of physicists) insists that little Woilins should be seen and not heard, so they shut the door and pretend the Woilins aren’t there.
January 15, 2024 at 2:47 pm
Especially Wilson’s Woilins, apparently.
January 15, 2024 at 2:58 pm
Asymphonic freedom: woilins of the Woilins
January 15, 2024 at 3:02 pm
It’s enough to provoke one to woilence.
Condemned to silence,
Provoked to violence,
Sentenced to violins;
Of the lambs, silence.
January 15, 2024 at 3:03 pm
Woilin on Woilin woilins
January 19, 2024 at 3:17 pm |
String Edward’s anticipatory comment:
A group, a group, my Stringdom for a group!
January 19, 2024 at 4:39 pm |
I fink knot, as PG Wodehouse might have said.
January 19, 2024 at 4:42 pm |
Gussie Fink-not-a-lot-le, if you remember.
January 19, 2024 at 4:43 pm
I mean Fink-knot-a-bottle
January 19, 2024 at 4:46 pm |
Do you think we need a “safe” word, so that when one of us says it, we know we really mean it?
January 19, 2024 at 4:50 pm |
Here’s another nice mess you’ve got me into, Sheldon.
January 19, 2024 at 4:55 pm |
You say Sidney, I say Coleman,
You say Sheldon, I say Glashow,
Sidney Coleman, Sheldon Glashow,
Let’s call the Hole thing Guff.
January 19, 2024 at 5:02 pm
Or, mutatis mutandis with your (un)favourite physicists.
January 19, 2024 at 5:08 pm |
You say Stephen, I say Hawking,
Let’s call the Black Hole guff.
January 19, 2024 at 5:10 pm
You can say one thing for Hawking, though – he really did know how to stretch time.
January 19, 2024 at 5:12 pm
Only locally of course, but that is all a finite body needs.
January 19, 2024 at 9:29 pm |
String Richard Feynman the Third? Wasn’t he buried in a car park in Leicester?
January 19, 2024 at 9:32 pm
I’m not sure I’m ready for another War of the Roses: A rose in any other colour would smell as sweet, usw.
January 19, 2024 at 9:34 pm
A rose in any other colour would knot smell as sweet.
January 19, 2024 at 9:45 pm |
Well, if String Edward comes to me in the heat of battle, saying “my Stringdom for a Group”, I will have the group he needs. But he won’t recognise it, or if he does it will be too late. At least, that’s what Shakespeare said, and who is to deny the power of a good story?