Re: Re: SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2)

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:12:55 -0700, Stolen_Humanity wrote:


T Wake wrote:
<Stolen_Humanity@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1146440346.025354.216970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It seems very few people are willing to argue the merits of respective
GUTs, and spend more effort arguing with cranks, which requires very
little thinking, than actually analyzing the merits of contemporary
physics.


Most people will go for the path of least resistance... The easy route
(arguing with the idiots) is often a good way to pass time without "hard
thinking."

Yes. Sloth in its fullest.

Doesn't mean there are any rules which prohibit people starting different
discussions though. Generally, it doesn't last long before one of the cranks
will *** in and try to derail things.

That's why I introduced the topic of SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2) into this
newgroups. The cranks don't even know what the hell it is. Meanwhile
you've got more intelligent people who might have logical disagreements
on it. However, from my perspective, SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2) is more
symmetric than SU(5). Think about it. Doesn't SU(5) have either up or
down, and thus you need it twice, which would duplicate the
electron/neutrino reactions? I see that as a hinderance, and it's no
surprise that SU(5) was proven to be false. In fact SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2)
does NOT predict proton decay unless imbedded in a larger group. I
don't understand the details but does this hinder the ability to create
protons and electrons from ordinary energy? I'd like an answer to that
question.


--
For Google Groups users this may be important
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

I hope to get some more good responses to this topic!

-Matthew Paul Finnigan-

the minimal SU(5) violates B and L conservation but still preserves the
combination B - L.
.

Quantcast