Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics | Not Even Wrong

If supersymmetry ultimately fails, then what might replace it? ]]>

“Mass empirics of leptons and quarks” by Gerald Rosen, 2005 ]]>

Your proposed modification, forgive me, is nonsensical. The 1/2 on the LHS is not accidental; it arises from the action principle. Change it and the LHS is no longer conserved. Your “equivalence-principle-failure-factor” amounts to a rescaling of the gravitational constant \(\kappa\), and as such, it is just a variation on the Jordan-Brans-Dicke theme.

There are ways to introduce modifications that violate the equivalence principle into the theory through the action principle. This is a well-studied subject. Ultimately though, a theory must pass observational tests. This includes precision tests in the laboratory and in the solar system (in particular, measurements of the bending of light, the Shapiro effect, perihelion advance, lunar laser ranging, etc.), observations of close binary pulsars (the rate of kinetic energy loss due to gravitational radiation) and cosmological structure formation (CMB temperature fluctuations, large-scale distribution of matter). It is very difficult to construct viable alternatives to Einstein’s theory that do not fail these observational tests.

]]>There is a possibility that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body but THERE IS A SYSTEMATIC DEVIATION between the inertial mass-energy and gravitational mass-energy. Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = – κ * T(mu,nu) – Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant) * g(mu,nu) * R = – κ * (T(mu,nu) / equivalence-principle-failure-factor) – Λ * g(mu,nu), where equivalence-principle-failure-factor = (1 – (T(mu,nu)/T(max))^2)^(1/2) — if dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and T(max) = +∞ then Einstein’s field equations are recovered. ]]>

NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Sheldon Glashow | PBS

Is “Naturalness” Unnatural? Presentation at SUSY ’06 Prof. Burton Richter ]]>

I also looked at the 2016 paper (which curiously appears to have disappeared from the government Web site but is available on ResearchGate.) It continues in the same vein, with a more sophisticated way of guessing a formula for the fine structure constant (but still missing the mark after the 6th significant digit, which, given the accuracy of QED, is missing by a mile.) And he continues with the misconceptions. In particular, what it calls “relatively simple semiclassical arguments” to help achieve “a better intuitive feel” for quantum field theory, I call a gross mischaracterization, a caricature of both theory and experiment. Finally I am coming to appreciate Schwinger’s dislike of Feynman diagrams: While a helpful computational tool, it gives the completely wrong (and experimentally easily discredited!) impression that particles are the fundamental objects of the universe, not fields.

]]>My guess is that Lestone’s heuristic string theory is by far the best attempt to calculate the fine structure constant.

“Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant” by J. P. Lestone, 2009

Does anyone have any criticisms or comments related to the preceding publication?

In the Los Alamos report LA-UR-16-20131 “Semi-classical Electrodynamics” (January 2016), Lestone wrote:

“Quantum electrodynamics is complex and its associated mathematics can appear overwhelming for those not trained in this field. Here semi-classical approaches are used to obtain a more intuitive physical feel for several QED processes including electrostatics, Compton scattering, pair annihilation, the anomalous magnetic moment, and the Lamb shift. These intuitive arguments lead to a possible answer to the question of the nature of charge. The corresponding calculated elementary charge is q=1.602177×10^−19 C with a corresponding calculated inverse fine structure constant of α^−1=137.036. These calculations suggest elementary particles have properties that resemble quantum micro black holes, and that electromagnetism and general relativity are intimately connected via virtual Hawking radiation. …”

Has anyone studied Lestone’s report LA-UR-16-20131 and reached a conclusion on its merits or demerits? ]]>