Re: SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2)


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:12:55 -0700, Stolen_Humanity wrote:
T Wake wrote:
<Stolen_Humanity@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
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.
...
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.

I propose to look at symmetry from the other end. Global symmety
is more traditional than gauge symmetry, but it is more symmetric,
preferable from point of view of simplicity (and, that's why, has
been recognized much earlier).

From this point of view, GUTs are less symmetric than the SM itself.

If we ignore mass terms, we have a nice global E(3) symmetry:
Rotations between generations, additive shifts to the components
of right-handed neutrinos. It explains much of the asymmetries
of the SM: It forbids to extend SU(3)_c to SU(4) with leptons
as forth color, forbids right-handed SU(2)_R partners of SU(2)_L,
forbids I_3 alone, outside the combination I_3-1/2.

What scares me is Ilja might be right!
Ken

Howso?

-Matthew Paul Finnigan-

.