6/24/2014 SU(2) x SU(2) = SO(4) and the Standard Model | Quantum field theory

https://nige.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/su2-x-su2-so4-and-the-standard-model/ 1/4
Quantum field theory

SU(2) x SU(2) = SO(4) and the
Standard Model
The Yang-Mills SU(N) equation for field strength is Maxwells U(1)
Abelian field strength law plus a quadratic term which represents net
charge transfer and contains the matrix constants for the Lie algebra
generators of the group (http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111). It is
interesting that the spin orthogonal group in three dimensions of
space and one of time, SO(4), corresponds to two linked SU(2)
groups, i.e.
SO(4) = SU(2) x SU(2),
rather than just one SU(2) as the Standard Model would suggest,
which is U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3). This is one piece of evidence for the
model proposed in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111
(http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111), where U(1) is simply dark energy
(the cosmological repulsion between mass, proved in that paper to
accurately predict observed quantum gravity coupling by a Casimir
force analogy!), and SU(2) occurs in two versions, one with massless
bosons which automatically reduces the SU(2) Yang-Mills equation to
Maxwells by giving a physical mechanism for the Lie algebra SU(2)
charge transfer term to be constrained to a value of zero (any other
value makes massless charged gauge bosons acquire infinite magnetic
self inductance if they are exchanged in an asymmetric rate that fails
to cancel the magnetic field curls). The other SU(2) is the regular one
we observe which has massive gauge bosons, giving the weak force.
Maybe we should say, therefore, that our revision of the Standard
Model is
U(1) x SU(2) x SU(2) x SU(3)
or
U(1) x SO(4) x SU(3).
6/24/2014 SU(2) x SU(2) = SO(4) and the Standard Model | Quantum field theory
https://nige.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/su2-x-su2-so4-and-the-standard-model/ 2/4
As explained in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111
(http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111), the spin structure of standard
quantum mechanics is given by the SU(2) Pauli matrices of quantum
mechanics. Any SU(N) group is simply a subgroup of the unitary
matrix U(N), containing specifically those matrices of U(N) with a
positive determinant of 1. This means that SU(2) has 3 Pauli spin
matrices. Similarly, SU(3) is the 8 matrices of U(3) having a
determinant of +1. Now what is interesting is that this SU(2) spinor
representation on quantum mechanics also arises with the Weyl
spinor, which Pauli dismissed originally in 1929 as being chiral, i.e.
permitting violation of parity conservation (left and right spinors
having different charge or other properties). Much to Paulis surprise
in 1956 it was discovered experimentally from the spin of beta
particles emitted by cobalt-60 that parity is not a true universal law (a
universal law would be like the 3rd law of thermodynamics, where no
exceptions exist). Rather, parity conservation is at least violated in
weak interactions, where only left handed spinors undergo weak
interactions. Parity conservation had to be replaced by the CPT
theorem, which states that to get a universally applicable conservation
law involving charge, parity and time, which applies to weak
interactions, you must simultaneously reverse charge, parity and time
for a particle together. Only this combination of three properties is
conserved universally, you cant merely reverse parity alone and
expect the particle to behave the same way! If you reverse all three
values, charge, parity and time, you end up, in effect, with a left
handed spinor again (if you started with one, or a right handed spinor
if you started with that), but the result is an antiparticle which is
moving the opposite way in time as plotted on a Feynman diagram. In
other words, the reversals of charge and time cancel the parity
reversal.
But why did Pauli not know that Maxwell in deriving the equations of
the electromagnetic force in 1861, modelled magnetic fields as
mediated by gauge bosons, implying that charges and field quanta
are parity conservation breaking (Weyl type chiral handed) spinors?
We discuss this Maxwell 1861 spinor
in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 (http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111),
which basically amounts to the fact Maxwell thought that the handed
curl of the magnetic field around an electric charge moving in space is
a result of the spin of vacuum quanta which mediate the magnetic
force. Charge spin, contrary to naive 1st quantization notions of
wavefunction indeterminancy, is not indeterminate but takes a
preferred handedness relative to the motion of charge, thus being
responsible for preferred handedness of the magnetic field at right
angles to the direction of motion of charge (magnetic fields, according
to Maxwell, are the conservation of angular momentum when
spinning field quanta are exchanged by spinning charges). Other
reasons for SU(2) electromagnetism are provided
in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 (http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111),
6/24/2014 SU(2) x SU(2) = SO(4) and the Standard Model | Quantum field theory
https://nige.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/su2-x-su2-so4-and-the-standard-model/ 3/4
such as the prediction of the electromagnetic field strength coupling.
Instead of the 1956 violation of parity conservation in weak
interactions provoking a complete return to Maxwells SU(2) theory
from 1861, what happened instead was a crude epicycle type fix for
the theory, in which U(1) continued to be used for electrodynamics
despite the fact that the fermion charges of electrodynamics are spin
half particles which obey SU(2) spinor matrices, and in which the
U(1) pseudo-electrodynamics (hypercharge theory) was eventually
(by 1967, due to Glashow, Weinberg and Salam) joined to the SU(2)
weak interaction theory by a linkage with an ad hoc mixing scheme
in which electric charge is given arbitrarily by the empirical
Weinberg-Gell Mann-Nishijima relation
electric charge = SU(2) weak isospin charge + half of U(1)
hypercharge
Figure 30 on page 36 of http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111
(http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111) gives an alternative interpretation of
the facts, better consistent with reality.
Although as stated above, SO(4) = SU(2) x SU(2), the individual
SU(2) symmetries here are related to simple spin orthogonal groups
SO(2) ~ U(1)
SO(3) ~ SU(2)
SO(4) ~ SU(3)
Its pretty tempting therefore to suggest as we did, that the U(1),
SU(2) and SU(3) groups are all spinor relations derived from the basic
geometry of spacetime. In other words, for U(1) Abelian symmetry,
particles can spin alone; and for SU(2) they can be paired up with
parallel spin axes and each particle in this pair can then either have
symmetric or antisymmetric spin. In other words, both spinning in
the same direction (0 degrees difference in spin axis directions) so that
their spins add together, doubling the net angular momentum and
magnetic dipole moment and creating a bose-einstein condensate or
effective boson from two fermions; or alternatively spinning in
opposite directions (180 degrees difference in spin axis directions) as in
Paulis exclusion principle, which cancels out the net magnetic dipole
moment. (Although wishy-washy anti-understanding 1st
quantization QM dogma insists that only one indeterminate
wavefunction exists for spin direction until measured, in fact the
absence of strong magnetic fields from most matter in the universe is
continuously collapsing that indeterminate wavefunction into a
determinate state, by telling us that Pauli is right and that spins do
generally pair up to cancel intrinsic magnetic moments for most
matter!) Finally, for SU(3), three particles can form a triplet in which
the spin axes are all orthogonal to one another (i.e. the spin axis
6/24/2014 SU(2) x SU(2) = SO(4) and the Standard Model | Quantum field theory
https://nige.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/su2-x-su2-so4-and-the-standard-model/ 4/4
directions for the 3 particles are 90 degrees relative from each other,
one lying on each x, y, and z direction, relative of course to one
another not any absolute frame). This is color force.
Technically speaking, of course, there are other possibilities. Woits
2002 arXiv paper 0206135, Quantum field theory and representation
theory, conjectures on page 4 that the Standard Model can be
understood in the representation theory of some geometric
structure and on page 51 he gives a specific suggestion that you pick
U(2) out of SO(4) expressed as a Spin(2n) Clifford spin algebra where
n = 2, and this U(2) subgroup of SO(4) then has a spin representation
that has the correct chiral electroweak charges. In other words, Woit
suggests replacing the U(1) x SU(2) arbitrary charge structure with a
properly unifying U(2) symmetry picked out from SO(4) space time
special orthogonal group. Woit represents SO(4) by a Spin(4) Clifford
algebra element (1/2)(e_i)(e_j) which corresponds to the Lie algebra
generator L_(ij)
(1/2)(e_i)(e_j) = L_(ij).
The Woit idea, of getting the chiral electroweak charges by picking
out U(2) charges from SO(4), can potentially be combined with the
previously mentioned suggestion of SO(4) = SU(2) x SU(2), where one
effective SU(2) symmetry is electromagnetism and the other is the
weak interaction.
My feeling is that there is no mystery, one day people will accept that
the various spin axis combinations needed to avoid or overcome
intrinsic magnetic dipole anomalies in nature are the source of the fact
that fundamental particles exist in groupings of 1, 2 or 3 particles
(leptons, mesons, baryons), and that is also the source of the U(1),
SU(2) and SU(3) symmetry groups of interactions, once you look at
the problems of magnetic inductance associated with the exchange of
field quanta to cause fundamental forces.
JUNE 21, 2014 NIGEL COOK QUANTUM
FIELD THEORY, SPIN GROUPS, SYMMETRY
BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM. | THE SORBET THEME.
Follow
Follow Quantum field theory
Powered by WordPress.com