Welcome to my Humble Unified Theory

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).

157 Responses to “Welcome to my Humble Unified Theory”

  1. Colin Says:

    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?

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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).

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

  2. Unification of particles and fundamental forces – Quantum field theory Says:

    […] 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 […]

  3. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    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.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

  4. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    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.

  5. mitchellporter Says:

    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?

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

  6. Colin Says:

    “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.

    • Lars Says:

      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.

  7. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    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”.

  8. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    Everybody knows
    The Emperor has no TOEs.
    Why tie ourselves in string
    To deny this obvious thing?

  9. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    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.

  10. Lars Says:

    Woit you say

    has wing of twuth

    Symmetway

    is hacked, foresooth

    • Lars Says:

      Is crossed, foresooth” woit be better

    • Lars Says:

      “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

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

      • Lars Says:

        soft, woit hand through yonder symmetry breaks? It is the right and Spacetime is the spun

      • Lars Says:

        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

      • Lars Says:

        With all due respect to Robert Frost, of course

        wouldn’t wish to plagiarize like ChatGPT

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      Arise, fair spin, and kill the envious string,

      Who is already sick and pale with grief.

      • Lar Says:

        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)

      • Lars Says:

        ”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

      • Lars Says:

        “To loop, or not to loop” Woit probably be better

  11. Lars Says:

    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

  12. Lars Says:

    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”

  13. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    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

  14. Lars Says:

    “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

  15. lars Says:

    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

    • Lars Says:

      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

      • Lars Says:

        maybe get a blister on their mousing finger

        maybe get a blister on their bum”

        woit probably be better

      • Lars Says:

        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!

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      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.

  16. Lars Says:

    String Edward’s anticipatory comment:

    A group, a group, my Stringdom for a group!

Leave a comment