Joy Christian wrote:***
Let me point out here that, as some of you know, an early version of my model for the strong correlations presented in the above paper has been published already in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2. This paper is behind the paywall, but the arXiv version of it is freely available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784. An arXiv version of a closely related paper is also available here.
Joy Christian wrote:***
Thank you, lkcl, for your comments. My primary purpose in the paper linked above is to understand the origins of quantum correlations in terms of the most primitive elements of the very geometry of spacetime, with the so-called quantum entanglement (and hence quantum mechanics) resulting as a byproduct. Specific problems of particle physics is not my concern in the above paper (for that see https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06036). Fred Diether and I did try to understand SU(3) symmetry within the framework I have presented in the above paper, but without success. Perhaps we didn't try hard enough, because I got distracted by other mundane things in life.
***
Joy Christian wrote:***
Thank you, lkcl, for your comments. My primary purpose in the paper linked above is to understand the origins of quantum correlations in terms of the most primitive elements of the very geometry of spacetime, with the so-called quantum entanglement (and hence quantum mechanics) resulting as a byproduct. Specific problems of particle physics is not my concern in the above paper (for that see https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06036). Fred Diether and I did try to understand SU(3) symmetry within the framework I have presented in the above paper, but without success. Perhaps we didn't try hard enough, because I got distracted by other mundane things in life.
***
lkcl wrote:freddi: SU(3) won't work. however SU(2)xU(1) in the form of a poincare sphere, with additional constraints based on the extensions to castillo's 2008 paper on jones matrices mapped to spinors on a poincare sphere might just do it.
FrediFizzx wrote:lkcl wrote:freddi: SU(3) won't work. however SU(2)xU(1) in the form of a poincare sphere, with additional constraints based on the extensions to castillo's 2008 paper on jones matrices mapped to spinors on a poincare sphere might just do it.
SU(3) won't work for what?
.
FrediFizzx wrote:There were some intriguing partial similarities with SU(3) which might lead one to wonder if SU(3) can in fact be constructed from Euclidean primitives.
..
lkcl wrote:sorry for not being clear, freddi. you wrote, earlier:FrediFizzx wrote:There were some intriguing partial similarities with SU(3) which might lead one to wonder if SU(3) can in fact be constructed from Euclidean primitives.
..
Joy Christian wrote:***
lkcl, thanks for Pierre-Philippe Dechant's paper. I have learned from his previous paper (cited in my paper) and I am sure the one you have linked will be useful too.
Fred is right that eventually we may be able to incorporate SU(3) within my framework based on Euclidean primitives. It is just that when we worked on it last time, we ran out of steam and got distracted by other things. On the other hand, the torus SU(2) x U(1) is a natural part of the framework, so it is already working. In fact the framework is based on the torus SU(2) x SU(2), of which SU(2) x U(1) is a very special case. SU(3) gave us some difficulty, which (with hindsight) is not surprising.
***
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests