|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:07 pm
But I like to think that mathematical physics is just the rigorization of numerology, in the same way that chemistry and astronomy are the rigorizations of alchemy and astrology respectively. Anyway, I came across these articles today on a derivation of the Standard Model gauge algebras from a tensor product of the normed division rings over the reals. I'm hoping that someone with a bit more experience with the Standard Model could tell me how much bullshit these may or may not contain. Also, mathematical physics as numerology: discuss
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
The gauge group of electrodynamics is U(1), which is isomorphism to the group of unit complex numbers, and weak isospin has the SU(2) group, which is isomorphic to group of unit quaternions. SO(7) contains the automorphism group of the octonions as a subgroup, and taking a subgroup of that that preserves a given imaginary unit octonion does indeed seem to give SU(3). So he's correct that starting with CxQxO and bastardizing it in mathematically valid ways, one can get the U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) group of the standard model. Perhaps my next question shows that I don't appreciate the fine points of his analysis (but frankly even the blunt points are murky enough to me), but I have to ask: what exactly does one do with CxQxO, anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:05 pm
The problem I'd have with such a thing is, there's no way numerology would be able to stand up to the kind of makeover it would require to be anything close to respectable mathematical physics and still be numerology.
Like thinking humans are just "rigorizations" of the early hominid ancestors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:04 am
The Mathematician The problem I'd have with such a thing is, there's no way numerology would be able to stand up to the kind of makeover it would require to be anything close to respectable mathematical physics and still be numerology. Like thinking humans are just "rigorizations" of the early hominid ancestors. Well, chemistry certainly isn't alchemy anymore, and astronomy is definitely not astrology anymore, but the roots are there. So numerology could, conceivably, turn into something akin to what we want mathematical physics to be. The power of numbers (and more generally, mathematics) to shape connections in the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:11 pm
I can definitely see the connection though I think the motivation of numerologists and mathematical physicists can be quite different.
Numerology seems to be about trying to find profound connections between physical phenomena and mathematics/numbers. Mathematical Physics, on the other hand, is about getting stuff to work on a computer.
Yes, I'm being a little facetious... but only a little
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:34 am
Morberticus I can definitely see the connection though I think the motivation of numerologists and mathematical physicists can be quite different. Numerology seems to be about trying to find profound connections between physical phenomena and mathematics/numbers. Mathematical Physics, on the other hand, is about getting stuff to work on a computer. Yes, I'm being a little facetious... but only a littleEh, it's not like astronomers are trying to use the stars to find when is the best time to get married...I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
