scholarly journals General Relativity and the Standard Model: Why evidence for one does not disconfirm the other

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholaos Jones
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Standard Model

scholarly journals THE RELATIVITY OF SPACE–TIME-PROPERTY

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (28) ◽  
pp. 1330051 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. DELBOURGO
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Cosmological Term ◽  
The Other ◽  
Time Property ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Lorentz Scalar

We describe a geometrical way to unify gravity with the other natural forces by adding fermionic Lorentz scalar variables, characterising attribute or property, to space–time location. (With five such properties one can accommodate all known leptons and quarks.) Using just one property, viz. electricity, the general relativity of such a scheme and its superscalar curvature automatically produces the Einstein–Maxwell Lagrangian and a cosmological term. By adding more properties we envisage the geometrical unification of the standard model with gravitation.

Beyond the Standard Model

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Baulieu ◽  
John Iliopoulos ◽  
Roland Sénéor
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
General Relativity ◽  
Supergravity Models ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
Field Theories ◽  
Beyond The Standard Model ◽  
Super Symmetry ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Topological Field ◽  
Supersymmetric Theories

The motivation for supersymmetry. The algebra, the superspace, and the representations. Field theory models and the non-renormalisation theorems. Spontaneous and explicit breaking of super-symmetry. The generalisation of the Montonen–Olive duality conjecture in supersymmetric theories. The remarkable properties of extended supersymmetric theories. A brief discussion of twisted supersymmetry in connection with topological field theories. Attempts to build a supersymmetric extention of the standard model and its experimental consequences. The property of gauge supersymmetry to include general relativity and the supergravity models.

Comments on the Market Crash: Six Months After

1988 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayne Leland ◽  
Mark Rubinstein
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Real Life ◽  
The Other ◽  
Financial Equilibrium ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Trading Mechanisms

Six months after the market crash of October 1987, we are still sifting through the debris searching for its cause. Two theories of the crash sound plausible -- one based on a market panic and the other based on large trader transactions -- though there is other evidence that is difficult to reconcile. If we are to believe the market panic theory or the Brady Commission's theory that the crash was primarily caused by a few large traders, we must strongly reject the standard model. We need to build models of financial equilibrium which are more sensitive to real life trading mechanisms, which account more realistically for the formation of expectations, and which recognize that, at any one time, there is a limited pool of investors available with the ability to evaluate stocks and take appropriate action in the market.

scholarly journals Effective field theory, past and future

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (06) ◽  
pp. 1630007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
General Relativity ◽  
Effective Field Theories ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
Effective Field Theory ◽  
Effective Field ◽  
Field Theories ◽  
Strong Interactions ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Theory Of Gravitation

I reminisce about the early development of effective field theories of the strong interactions, comment briefly on some other applications of effective field theories, and then take up the idea that the Standard Model and General Relativity are the leading terms in an effective field theory. Finally, I cite recent calculations that suggest that the effective field theory of gravitation and matter is asymptotically safe.

scholarly journals Weak scale from Planck scale: Mass scale generation in a classically conformal two-scalar system

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Junichi Haruna ◽  
Hikaru Kawai
Keyword(s):  
Scalar Field ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
Planck Scale ◽  
Vacuum Expectation ◽  
Vacuum Expectation Value ◽  
The Other ◽  
Expectation Value ◽  
Weak Scale ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
The One

Abstract In the standard model, the weak scale is the only parameter with mass dimensions. This means that the standard model itself cannot explain the origin of the weak scale. On the other hand, from the results of recent accelerator experiments, except for some small corrections, the standard model has increased the possibility of being an effective theory up to the Planck scale. From these facts, it is naturally inferred that the weak scale is determined by some dynamics from the Planck scale. In order to answer this question, we rely on the multiple point criticality principle as a clue and consider the classically conformal $\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant two-scalar model as a minimal model in which the weak scale is generated dynamically from the Planck scale. This model contains only two real scalar fields and does not contain any fermions or gauge fields. In this model, due to a Coleman–Weinberg-like mechanism, the one-scalar field spontaneously breaks the $ \mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry with a vacuum expectation value connected with the cutoff momentum. We investigate this using the one-loop effective potential, renormalization group and large-$N$ limit. We also investigate whether it is possible to reproduce the mass term and vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field by coupling this model with the standard model in the Higgs portal framework. In this case, the one-scalar field that does not break $\mathbb{Z}_2$ can be a candidate for dark matter and have a mass of about several TeV in appropriate parameters. On the other hand, the other scalar field breaks $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and has a mass of several tens of GeV. These results will be verifiable in near-future experiments.

scholarly journals Basic Phenomenal Objects, or How a Multitude of Fundamental Particles Can Be Reduced to Just One Single Basic Entity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. P. Schuttevaar ◽  
V. Schuttevaar
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
Universal Theory ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
Fundamental Particles ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Basic Entity ◽  
Interaction Law ◽  
Upper Boundary

Abstract This paper introduces a novel unification model, basic phenomenal objects (BPO), which attempts to challenge the standard model. The claim is that BPO performs well on all five major scientific virtues (i.e. simplicity, universality, consistency, empirical accuracy, fertility). Namely, for a universal theory, BPO is very simple, as it only requires one type of basic entity – the basic phenomenal object – possessing only three attributes (basic velocity, basic mutuality, basic inertia), of which the behavior is guided by only two laws (interaction law, asymmetry law). Moreover, these foundations of BPO are also consistent with important theories, such as crucial parts of general relativity and QM, can derive important empirical results (e.g. the gyro-magnetic ratio of particles), provide novel explanations (e.g. the structure of anti-matter), and state novel predictions (e.g. an upper boundary to the energy of a stable neutrino).

clause whereby it was a condition of acceptance that goods would be charged at prices ruling at the date of delivery. The defendant buyers replied on 27 May 1969, giving an order with differences from the sellers’ quotation and with their own terms and conditions, which had no price variation clause. The order had a tear-off acknowledgment for signature and return which accepted the order ‘on the terms and conditions thereon’. On 5 June 1969, the sellers, after acknowledging receipt of the order on 4 June, returned the acknowledgment form duly completed with a covering letter stating that delivery was to be ‘in accordance with our revised quotation of 23 May for delivery in ... March/April 1970’. The machine was ready by about September 1970, but the buyers could not accept delivery until November 1970. The sellers invoked the price increase clause and claimed £2,892 for the increase due to the rise in costs between 27 May 1969 and 1 April 1970, when the machine should have been delivered. Thesiger J gave judgment for the sellers for £2,892 and interest. The buyers appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the first instance decision, all three judges feeling that the conclusive act was the sellers’ return of the tear-off acknowledgment slip. However, the reasons given by the judges for arriving at their decision differed. Bridge LJ and Lawton LJ broadly applied the standard model of ‘offer – counter-offer – acceptance’ to this ‘battle of the forms’, although both of them were clearly aware of the difficulties that this would cause. Lord Denning’s approach, not untypically, ranged much more widely. Unlike the other two judges, who can be seen to adopt a broadly ‘last shot’ theory (that is, that the ‘battle’ is won by the person who submits their terms last), Lord Denning was prepared to countenance a number of other possibilities. The following passages serve to indicate these divergences in approach: Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401, CA, p 402

1995 ◽  
pp. 118-124
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Machine Tool ◽  
Price Increase ◽  
The Other ◽  
Price Variation ◽  
Covering Letter ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Role of gravity in particle physics: A unified approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 2041012
Author(s):  
Pedro D. Alvarez ◽  
Mauricio Valenzuela ◽  
Jorge Zanelli
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Standard Model ◽  
Particle Physics ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Lorentz Transformations ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Matter Fields

General Relativity (GR) and the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics are two enormously successful frameworks for our understanding the fundamental laws of nature. However, these theoretical schemes are widely disconnected, logically independent and unrelated in scope. Yet, GR and SM at some point must intersect, producing claims about phenomena that should be reconciled. Be it as it may, both schemes share a common basic ground: symmetry under local Lorentz transformations. Here, we will focus on the consequences of assuming this feature from the beginning to combine geometry, matter fields and gauge interactions. We give a rough description of how this could be instrumental for the construction of a unified scheme of gravitation and particle physics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document