Re: Ether theory of the standard model - progress report


"Ilja Schmelzer" <q6867901@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dv64kt$etl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
| > For those of us who, like myself, make no pretense of
| > understanding (beyond a popular science level) the various
| > approaches being taken to find an underlying theory from which
| > GR arises as an emergent theory or limiting case, I was wondering
| > if you could provide your unique perspective on these competing
| > approaches.
| >
| > Your own theory falls into the category of theories based on
| > analogies with condensed matter physics. What do you see as the
| > advantages/disadvantages of your approach compared with your
| > competitors in this area, such as Visser, Carter, or Volovik?
|
| They don't accept the preferred frame, AFAIU.

There is no preferred frame.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
The bottle moves in a circle in Mickey's frame.
This ball moves in an arc:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml (8 second movie)

For me, it has
| been a guiding principle to search for things which are more
| beautiful in a preferred frame.

Ellipses are beautiful. Straight lines are bland. The Universe is all
ellipses.
Androcles.


| Looking at the standard model,
| I have looked for the number 3 (three colors, three generations,
| three generators of isospin, 2^3 fermions in each generation,
| 2^3 real components in each fermion) which may be possibly
| associated with the dimension of space, not spacetime. Visser
| and Volovik seem to look, in relativistic tradition, for number 4.
|
| For me, the stigma related with the label "ether theory" is no
| longer something I consider to be bad. Instead, it gives me
| free ride. If potential competitors do string theory, fine.
| With serious competition in ether theory I would not have
| had six years after gr-qc/0001101 to observe the rather
| trivial (once found) E(3) symmetry of the SM.
|
| > What do you consider to be the advantages/disadvantages of
| > string theory and LQG?
|
| The battle string theory vs. LQG is rather uninteresting for me.
| They are both on the wrong way ;-))).
|
| The most interesting question regarding string theory is
| for me to explain why it is very successful in the sociological
| sense (number of papers, working places and so on), in
| comparison with its scientific value (predictive power).
|
| But I'm obviously not neutral in these questions.
|
| Ilja
|
|
|


.

Relevant Pages