Erik SturckeDec 6
John Carlos Baez

I've decided to spend some time on a quest that's likely to fail. I'm trying to start with the Standard Model of particle physics, ponder its patterns, and figure out *why* it's that way.

That's *not* what most particle physicists have been doing for the last 40 years. In many ways the Standard Model looks complicated and arbitrary, so they often try to embed it in some larger, more symmetrical theory. That hasn't worked too well, so it's worth trying something else - even though it's likely to fail.

This is my report on some patterns that pop out if you stare at the Standard Model long enough. These are mostly not my own discoveries, but I'm trying to package them a bit more neatly.

This is the first of two parts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zrp5HVK-tE

Note: this talk is not for beginners. If you're just getting started, try my course on the Standard Model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yjxqMoX-y8

Can We Understand the Standard Model?

YouTube
Dec 6 at 2:21pmWeb
Show threadOscar CunninghamDec 7
@johncarlosbaez Sometimes I like to wonder about how much of the standard model we'd have been able to figure out if humanity were only allowed to do chemistry experiments. This is an analogy to trying to go beyond the standard model without doing further high-energy experiments.
Show threadJohn Carlos BaezDec 7
@OscarCunningham - yes. My hope is that imposing the 3 constraints that theory be mathematically beautiful, make good conceptual sense and fit the data we have narrows the search enough to make it manageable. In fact string theorists seem to have decided these 3 constraints are so stringent that there are *no* solutions. Thus, many are studying a mathematically beautiful theory that predicts a "multiverse" of possible universes, one of which might fit the data we have (though nobody has yet found one without throwing about 100 extra terms into the equations in an ad hoc way).
Show threadBill RickerDec 7

@johncarlosbaez
While I'm not the intended audience and I do intend to watch the preliminary videos, I've followed your posts long enough that I could follow the discussion. (Helps that I was exposed to modern algebra 50 years ago before college!) Much appreciated.

I too hope for a unified solution that we would consider mathematically beautiful, not that I can do anything about it; so I'm glad you're nudging things.

Show threadRefurio AnachroDec 8

So this is what you have been doing! Neat and crisp once more!

Huh, I made a screenshot of this bit:

> We can dramatize this. A Riemannian manifold M where each tangent space has a complex structure J: T_x M -> T_x M preserved by parallel transport is called a Kähler manifold. A Kähler manifold where each tangent space has a complex volume form ω preserved by parallel transport is called a Calabi-Yau manifold.

I wish I had that when I first felt I might want to learn what Calabi-Yau manifolds are about.

@johncarlosbaez

Show threadMike StayDec 8
@johncarlosbaez h₂(O) is an aquatic space.
Show threadMike StayDec 10
@johncarlosbaez And the splitting of h₂(O) = h₂(ℂ) + ℂ^⊥ could either be Mosaic or electrolytic, I guess—though how methylene gets into the picture is less clear to me.
Show threadJohn Carlos BaezDec 11
@metaweta - I've tried to make chemical puns involving carbohydrates built from ℍ, ℂ and 𝕆... and the radical ℝ.
Show threadWeekend EditorDec 11

@johncarlosbaez @metaweta

Don't forget ℕ!

Show threadsolrizeDec 10
@johncarlosbaez I haven't finished watching this (or started the 2nd one) but I like it a lot so far.
Show threadJohn Carlos BaezDec 10
@solrize - thanks!