tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post7620592115258330359..comments2024-01-22T11:26:37.599-08:00Comments on TGD diary: TGD explanation of the anomalous decay of Higgs to τ-μ pair and anomalies of B meson decaysMatti Pitkänenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-13334292002386635862015-01-26T00:15:22.704-08:002015-01-26T00:15:22.704-08:00
Yes I remember now that there was some talk abo...<br />Yes I remember now that there was some talk about possibility of CPT violation visible: there were some indications that top and anti-top have different masses. I remember that the claimed mass difference was really large. I indeed looked whether one could understand it in TGD framework. <br /><br />Next I must bravely predict my geometric past. Probably I considered the possibility of having an inherent breaking of CPT obtained by providing besides CP_2 also causal diamond CD with Kahler form, which would correspond to monopole associated with the light-like boundary of CD. This would induce breaking of Lorentz invariance at the level of CD. I concluded later that this is not a good idea and I have long time ago thrown it away but still feel shame for it;-).<br /><br /> I think that TGD prediction for CPT breaking caused by CD geometry would be extremely small: order of magnitude could be of order 1/p, p-adic prime characterising the particle and size of CD. For electron it would be order of 10^(-38). Matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.fi/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-88901615761724698012015-01-25T21:56:34.427-08:002015-01-25T21:56:34.427-08:00Thank you very much, found relevant links:
CPT Vi...Thank you very much, found relevant links:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cpt_violation_top_quark_mass-77277" rel="nofollow">CPT Violation In The Top Quark Mass ?</a><br /><br /><a href="http://matpitka.blogspot.it/2011/03/are-masses-of-top-and-antitop-quark.html" rel="nofollow">Quantitative picture about CPT breaking</a>Giuliohttps://twitter.com/giuliohomenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-1891218113596765422015-01-25T19:11:47.119-08:002015-01-25T19:11:47.119-08:00I do not know any mechanism of CPT violation (apar...I do not know any mechanism of CPT violation (apart from that following from small violation of P and T by the fact causal diamond is basic object of zero energy ontology. These violations are however extremely small. Neutrino mixing could give to rise to CP violation just like CKM mixing of quarks. Matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.fi/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-52034430546965587112015-01-25T17:10:56.345-08:002015-01-25T17:10:56.345-08:00Can Kähler magnetic charge (among standard particl...Can Kähler magnetic charge (among standard particles plus neutrino mixing) lead to CPT violation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-76999405265639888382015-01-21T09:56:21.888-08:002015-01-21T09:56:21.888-08:00Sorry for slow response. I did not have opportunit...<br />Sorry for slow response. I did not have opportunity to answer earlier. <br /><br />I considered only the mu-tau anomaly. From your earlier posting I got the impression that the decay as such is regarded as anomalous rather than <br />the deviation from the simple model described above. I might of course have mis-understood something.<br /><br />The new physics of course can and does exist and I have been used my professional life to understand what it is basing my approach to TGD. <br /><br />I believe in Occam's razor. When one has anomaly it is better to start from experimental facts instead of starting brane world constructions;-). We know that neutrinos have mass and they mix: this is<br />something, which we definitely know beyond standard model. <br /><br />Therefore the minimal scenario involves only standard model couplings and particles plus neutrino mixing parameters and masses so that one can generalise existing calculations for quarks. In fact, also other reasonable scenarios should make this prediction as a lowest order prediction. It should be easy to check whether this<br />simple explanation allows to understand the anomaly or whether something more is required.<br /><br />The proposed model of course does not try to say anything about other possible anomalies. TGD suggests possible mechanism here but I do not have the needed knowhow to do calculations and I am also too old and lazy;-). Matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.fi/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-57579606724459997492015-01-21T03:18:32.608-08:002015-01-21T03:18:32.608-08:00Matti, you have clearly failed to understand all t...Matti, you have clearly failed to understand all the details. For example, the new paper from today is building on a completely different anomaly than the paper that had used three anomalies including "higgs to mu tau".<br /><br />Your suggestions that these models are unnatural because they produce "new parameters" is completely irrational. The discovery of any new particle beyond the currently established low-energy effective field theory always introduces new parameters to the low-energy effective field theory. This doesn't imply that no new physics may exist, does it? If it did, this wrong argument could have been made at any point in the evolution of physics and "deduce" that nothing new would ever be discovered.<br /><br />In reality, the models may be totally natural, having more complicated low-energy effective field theories is an inseparable consequence of going to higher energies, and there's nothing wrong about these matters or new parameters.<br /><br />Naturalness really means the absence of parameters whose values have to be unnatural - typically much smaller than what is possible. Adding new particles only decreases the naturalness informally and by a small amount, anyway.Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.com