Timeline for The 'real' use of Quantum Algebra, Non-commutative Geometry, Representation Theory, and Algebraic Geometry to Physics
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2010 at 13:20 | comment | added | Peter Shor | Orbicular: The prediction of Connes and Chamseddine for the Higgs mass is only valid in the "great desert" scenario where there are no new particles with masses on the same order as the Higgs, and the existence of dark matter casts doubt on this scenario. The standard model does not actually predict a mass for the Higgs. Only some Higgs masses are consistent with the standard model, and Connes and Chamseddine's prediction falls squarely within this range. However, recent experiments seem to indicate that the Higgs mass is considerably lighter than Connes and Chamseddine's predictions. | |
| Jul 31, 2010 at 13:19 | comment | added | Peter Shor | Orbicular: the framework of Connes and Chamseddine only admits some of the Lagrangians that would be acceptable in quantum field theory, and one of these admissible Lagrangians is the standard model. The observation that it is admissible is what physicists mean when they say that they are "using it." I consider this a predictive model (although, as Connes would admit, it is still very far from a useful theory of physics). | |
| Feb 8, 2010 at 20:16 | comment | added | B. Bischof | Thank you for that link, it sounds interesting and this is the sort of answer I was hoping for. | |
| Feb 8, 2010 at 20:16 | comment | added | Orbicular | I have to point out that the model of Connes and Chamseddine is based on the standard model, i.e. they use it. Now they get a different expected Higgs mass (it is higher I think). Now suppose the LHC does not find the Higgs at the energies predicted by the (classical) standard model. Then the standard model has to be wrong (and a lot of physics redone). Connes and C. would consider that their triumph, even though the "wrong theory" gave the correct answer. A colleague of mine pointed out that Connes probably knows best how terribly far away he is from a physically reasonable theory. | |
| Feb 8, 2010 at 20:08 | history | answered | Steve Huntsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |