The Stand-Up Physicist: Gauge Symmetries in the Lagrangian AND the Field Equations

In this episode of the Stand-Up Physicist, Doug Sweetser explains an issue known as gauge symmetry, a property often found in a Lagrange density. The field equations that result from applying the Euler-Lagrange equation are often gauge dependent. For Doug's hypothesis that unifies gravity and the standard model, the field equations too are invariant under a gauge transformation. Doug explains why this is so.

The epilogue feature Laurencia Elle Sweetser at 7 months in a competition called "Blocks on the Head". While she gives a spirited try, the experience and MIT education of her father proves too much, but both parties enjoyed the competition.

Web resources:
twitter: visualphysics
http://quaternions.com - Doing physics with quaternions
http://bit.ly/GEMtshirt - how to buy a shirt
http://bit.ly/GEMnb - A Mathematica notebook on the unified standard model
http://bit.ly/GEMnbpdf - same as above, but as a pdf
http://visualphysics.org - analytic animations
http://thestandupphysicst.com - DVDs

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Gravity
• gauge symmetry
• GEM
• unified
• standard
• model

[CostaDelBarto]

There's an interesting preprint on arxiv.org by a guy named Villata on CPT and general relativity. He shows that a CPT invariant form of GR requires gravitational repulsion between hydrogen and anti-hydrogen.

Do solutions to your unified PDE have solutions like that? If they do, you might want to get in touch with him because that looks like a very sincere prediction of unifying CPT invariance with general covariance.

[sweetser]

@CostaDelBarto My work uses hypercomplex numbers, the ones with no negative signs. It is all about attraction, not having a means of doing repulsion. There is a big push to find out if anti-hydrogen behaves differently in a gravity field. If it does, Villata will be hot, hot, hot. I am with the majority on this one, thinking there should be no difference what-so-ever between the behavior of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen.

[Hythloday71]

This stuff very much interests me. I am a 2nd yr Math student. I would be interested to hear what the known problems are with current attempts and how your theory addresses them. That is how it solves them or negates them. Further does your theory have any experimental implications beyond what is known, that is does it explain all current observations and OR predict anything new ?

[sweetser]

@Hythloday71 One prediction is that the Higgs boson is not necessary. We should know by the end of 2012 if this prediction is right or wrong based on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The theory predicts 2nd order light bending around the Sun that is 12% more than the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity. That experiment is not being done. I wish I could do relativistic rocket science (Google for it), because that _might_ help with dark matter (the math is too tough for me)

[Hythloday71]

@sweets-thanks, I don't think 'Higgs not necessary' counts per say as a prediction. The Higgs I take it is inferred from much scientific understanding and answers a question, presumably, what is that question I wonder? And how does your theory answer it? As to the math being to tough, i doubt it if you have the perseverence. FYI, i am a believer in finitism. That is i reject all continuums, and therefore calculus as true reprentations of reality. Good tools mind so far ! But creation of paradox

[sweetser]

@Hythloday71 The LHC is a $10 billion bet that there is a Higgs boson and SUSY particles. If are found, then my GEM unified field theory is WRONG. Since the majority of theoretical physicists think the LHC will find the Higgs and/or SUSY particles, it is a prediction. The question the Higgs addresses is how do bosons and fermions gain mass. Sorry, I cannot supply my answer in YouTube comments, that is what these videos try to do :-)

You do Math and reject conitnuums? Oops.

[CostaDelBarto]

@sweetser

Cool, thanks. Just curious.

I think you might misunderstand me though. Villata has a good win either way. If GR proves correct, okay no repulsion but... he's just shown that the same result has falsified CPT invariance.

It's one or the other. So now AEgIS and GBAR are a BIG deal. Make up your own mind. Check out the preprint archive. His paper is so good I already emailed him my own congratulations.

: )

It's a good paper. Terrifically simple too. You simply have to read it.

[CostaDelBarto]

@sweetser :"One prediction is that the Higgs boson is not necessary. We should know by the end of 2012 if this prediction is right or wrong based on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). "

Higgs isn't easily falsifiable. They've been trying to falsify it for ages of course and every time they don't find it they say, well, must have more mass than we thought somehow. So the Higgs mechanism looks troubled already to me, from some time back.

[Hythloday71]

@Hythloday71 - DOH ! what an idiot i am, sorry of course that is the very definition of falsifiable. Still, some thing troubles me if that is ALL it predicts.

[Hythloday71]

@Hythloday71 - just a note: the 'prediction' of NOT finding is not very good as it is NOT FALSIFIABLE. This attribute as far as theories go is usually frowned upon.

[Hythloday71]

@sweetser - thanks again, i appreciate u can't get into over txt.

As for rejection of continuums u seem shocked, Einstein, Feynman, Smolin and many notable players are of the same opinion or have voiced the significant possibility thereof. You as a physicist i suggest are two eager to accept the invention of the REAL number system. It has many deeply philosophically troubling issues that I know of. The more i read works of others leads me to believe it stretches further than I know.