Welcome to the ToeQuest.
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: why not SU(5)?

  1. #1
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,778
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,472x in 1,192 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    why not SU(5)?

    Elaborate experiments failed to detect proton decay and data precision justify the abandonment of SU(5) symmetry altogether from any future theory of unification. The implication is that natural symmetry could not go beyond the product of U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) although these products do not depict complete chiral symmetry since only the left handed ones are ever found in nature. Why nature is predominantly left-handed remains a mystery. However, it is well established that mass also could arise from broken chiral symmetry. To restore complete chiral symmetry then there must be an underlying symmetry for square of energy and these can be described by using the algebra of multi-dimensional Hadamard matrices.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    11,621
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    295
    Thanked 896x in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    154

    Smile Re: why not SU(5)?

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    Elaborate experiments failed to detect proton decay and data precision justify the abandonment of SU(5) symmetry altogether from any future theory of unification. The implication is that natural symmetry could not go beyond the product of U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) although these products do not depict complete chiral symmetry since only the left handed ones are ever found in nature. Why nature is predominantly left-handed remains a mystery. However, it is well established that mass also could arise from broken chiral symmetry. To restore complete chiral symmetry then there must be an underlying symmetry for square of energy and these can be described by using the algebra of multi-dimensional Hadamard matrices.
    What sort of time frame are you talking for proton decay-billions of years?



    regards michael
    Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
    reveal herself?

  3. #3
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,778
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,472x in 1,192 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    Re: why not SU(5)?

    Quote Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
    What sort of time frame
    1 followed by 33 zeros years!
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    11,621
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    295
    Thanked 896x in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    154

    Smile Re: why not SU(5)?

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    1 followed by 33 zeros years!
    That Antonio,is merely a blink of the eye,compared to the eternal now!




    regards michael.
    Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
    reveal herself?

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top