Yuri Danoyan Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) This table from paper "Extended Supersymmetry And Extended Supergravity Theories" Joel Scherk (Ecole Normale Superieure) . LPTENS-78-21, Sep 1978. p.15. Invited talk given at NATO Advanced Study Inst. on Gravitation: Recent Developments, Cargese, France, Jul 10-29, 1978. Published in Cargese Summer Inst.1978:0479 (QC178:S77:1978) Drew attention to dark green rectangle. According Pauli's "Division and reduction of symmetry" ( http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34142) if you cut and ignore upper half, you get: 3 particles with spin 1 and 1 particle with spin 1/2. But if you imagine inversion: 3 particles with spin 1/2 (proton,electron,neutrino) and 1 particle with spin 1 (photon) just agree with Nature. See my post: Discrete and Continue symmetries.http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145 My questions: Why disagreement between Theory and Expierence ? Why so unjust inversion? Edited July 30, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 if you cut and ignore upper half This sounds a lot like "if you ignore what doesn't agree with my hypothesis, you are left with total agreement with my hypothesis" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) Not yet confirmation for graviton "I like Bohr's division, because it allows the possibility that gravitons may not exist. If the scope of quantum theory is limited, gravity may legitimately be excluded from it"(Freeman Dyson) if you cut and ignore upper half If lower part not show properly real world,no trust to upper part. Edited July 30, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 How were results for graviton spin=2 obtained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Do you want to know why the graviton should be spin-2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) i want to know about initial axiomatics.... As a conservative, I do not agree that a division of physics into separate theories for large and small is unacceptable. I am happy with the situation in which we have lived for the last eighty years, with separate theories for the classical world of stars and planets and the quantum world of atoms and electrons. Instead of insisting dogmatically on unification, I prefer to ask the question whether a unified theory would have any real physical meaning. The essence of any theory of quantum gravity is that there exists a particle called the graviton which is a quantum of gravity, just like the photon which is a quantum of light. Such a particle is necessary in quantum gravity, because energy is carried in discrete little packets called quanta, and a quantum of gravitational energy would behave like a particle.(Dyson) I propose as a hypothesis to be tested that it is impossible in principle to observe the existence of individual gravitons. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true, only that I can find no evidence against it. If it is true, quantum gravity is physically meaningless. If individual gravitons cannot be observed in any conceivable experiment, then they have no physical reality and we might as well consider them non-existent. They are like the ether, the elastic solid medium which nineteenth-century physicists imagined filling space. Electric and magnetic fields were supposed to be tensions in the ether, and light was supposed to be a vibration of the ether. Einstein built his theory of relativity without the ether, and showed that the ether would be unobservable if it existed. He was happy to get rid of the ether, and I feel the same way about gravitons(Dyson) Dyson F "The world on a string" New York Rev. Books 51 (8) (2004); http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17094 Edited August 20, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Stop posting quotes and make a direct point or ask a direct question. Otherwise your posts are not really very indicative to starting a dialogue. So what are the questions? 1) Why is the graviton spin-2? 2) Why is the graviton massless? 3) How to include supersymmetry and the gravitino? What else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 My questions are : 1)Where is phenomenological proof existence of supersymmetry? 2)Why overcoming of mathematical problem to give out as a physical observation? 3)Does introduction of supersymmetry is violaition of Occam Razor "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 1) Direct phenomenological evidence is so far missing. Maybe LHC will cure this. 2) Using mathematical "intuition" has proved to be fruitful in physics so far. A great example of that is Dirac's prediction of antimatter. And as theoretical physics is a mathematical pursuit it is the only thing to do; use mathematical models and constructions to make predictions. Of course, nature has the final say. 3) I think that it does not violate the metatheorem of Occam's razor. Supersymmetry is known to be a very economical way of getting round the Coleman-Mandula no-go theorem. I don't know if it is the only way, but it is probably the most natural. Thank you for your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 Have you read my thread ? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I have not read your thread properly. I don't know what "Metasymmetry" is. And unless you get it published I am unlikely to think about it too much. Sorry, but I have plenty of work to do myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 I published it in russian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 What journal? Under what name was it published? Write an English version and put it on the arXiv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted August 21, 2008 Author Share Posted August 21, 2008 Thank you for useful discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I would like it very much if you explain your idea of metasymmetry again. I really have no idea. Please try to use standard mathematical language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) Please try to use standard mathematical language. Because metasymmetry idea - not standard idea impossible to submit its standard mathematical language. " Every time is needed to seek a new path" Richard Feynman "Character of Physical Law", "Seeking New Laws" "The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another". Richard Feynman Edited September 1, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 If you cannot describe it mathematically then no one will take you seriously. This must be your first goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 Are you familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein philosophy? http://www.island-of-freedom.com/WITTGEN.HTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 No, I don't recall any of his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 (edited) Could you help me establish contact with Professor Hovik Khudaverdian? When i explain him my research (i speaking armenian and russian),then i can used him as a translator. We are natives the same city Yerevan,e-mail to him always returning. Edited September 2, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 His email if freely available via the school of mathematics website. Feel free to say that we have corresponded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 (edited) Can you help me establish contact with Professor Hovik Khudaverdian?My be we can used him as a translator,because he speaking russian and armenian.My mail to him always returning.His adres blocked. Edited September 2, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now