Image: Photograph by Jeff Wilson
In Brief
- Creating a unified theory of nature is the highest goal of modern physics, and few have contributed as much to achieving it as Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin.
- In the 1960s Weinberg helped to develop two pillars of the Standard Model: the unification of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, and the theory of the strong nuclear force.
- Since then, he has contributed to efforts to complete the unification, such as string theory, by including the only force of nature that the Standard Model does not cover: gravity.
- Weinberg has also applied particle physics to cosmology. His model explaining dark energy in terms of parallel universes is the most widely cited argument in favor of a multiverse.
Steven Weinberg came up with a good idea one day while driving his red Camaro. The paper he wrote, “A Model of Leptons,” was just two and a half pages long—including references and acknowledgments. When it came out in 1967, it was largely ignored. But it became one of the most quoted physics papers ever and helped to earn Weinberg the 1979 Nobel Prize, shared with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow.
In those two and a half pages, Weinberg showed that two of the four forces of nature, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, which outwardly seem completely different, could be different aspects of a single unified set of “electroweak” forces. This theory predicted the existence of a new neutral particle among those that carry out the action of the weak force, known as the weak bosons. And he showed how the innate symmetry of the electroweak forces becomes hidden or, as physicists say, “spontaneously broken,” so that we perceive electromagnetism and the weak force as dissimilar. This symmetry-breaking process endows particles such as quarks with mass.
This article was originally published with the title Dr. Unification.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentWe now have a new equation defining the quantized electron mass. The electron is modeled as a gravitationally confined, naked ring singularity, as proposed by theorist Alexander Burinskii. This equation brings us one step closer to a unified theory that includes the gravitational force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectron mass = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG)exponent 1/4 kilogram
For additional information, see
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595
Don Stevens
IMO the key to comprehending the mechanical nature of mass may be to recognize that the kinetic energy imparted at emission, expressed as self-propagation in wave state manifestations of matter, is only expressed as the potential energy of mass it the stationary particle state manifestation of matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs such, the incidence of particle/wave state manifestations of matter may produce the inverse relationship between material motion and mass.
The particle state configuration of emission energy may be an encompassing field of internally directed, self opposed, kinetic energy. In this case, its expression is not a characteristic of particle interactions but fundamental to the particle state.
I also suspect that the particle selection function attributed to the Higgs Field is actually the temporally varying thermal density of the initial developing universe. Only matter that is preferentially materialized in the high mass particle state could be emitted into the hyperdense early universe.
Following the initial release of light, indicating the diminishment of thermal density, more often light waves are emitted, manifesting as zero mass photon particles only when their momentum is absorbed.
As the quantum material comprising atoms intermittently materialize as waves for their inherently short duration, their self propagation produces a short linear motion. Now materializing as particles, their stationary spin produces their redirection, expressed in their next wave state manifestation. This mechanical process could explain the 'jiggling' motion of atoms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1010/1010.4803v1.pdf
Title: "Axions in the Landscape and String Theory"
Alternative Title: Fictitious Particles in the Imaginary Landscape of a Nonexistent Theory
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
As part of the initial event space may have crystallized squashing it into points of compressed space all surrounded by stretched space (from the same action like teeter-totter ends) with the latter pulling between any two of the former...attraction. Some bits combined into ever larger unit with other bits orbiting around some of those units we call a nucleus. Their regular orbiting make them move alternately further and closer to other bits and units causing attraction to increase and decrease between them and others in frequencies some of which are in the light spectrum, visible and otherwise...light. The simplest foundation always supports the most configurations and nothing could be more simple than two energies, equal in strength and opposite in nature. The area between what we consider mass would not be an empty vacuum of nothingness but, rather, a near infinitely flexible, frictionless energy that is the conduit for passing information as to movement between objects. Some of those bits move in regular patterns we can detect. Others do not move accordingly but they still attract...dark matter? Or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a problem with multi-dimensionality, in that different frequency precipitations operate somewhat differently due to the construct of elements in their construction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience bends over backwards to keep multi-dimensionality unintelligible; and NASA helps them along by producing distorted images for public consumption. No way do NASA images substantiate NASA text, ever. [As retired digital image reproduction tech and trainer for Xerox Corp, I have examined 5000 NASA images; and I will testify they are skewed; with distorted aspect ratio; undeveloped, inverted or over-developed contrast; false color and paint-overs. Whoever runs NASA does not want anybody to know what their cameras perceive.] So, nobody knows what's really true, and judgments made upon faulty data are faulty judgments. The judgment there is no Human life anywhere but here is a faulty judgment based on fault-filled photographs. The judgment that all Living and Physical phenomena must follow the same energy patterns is a faulty judgment based on partial data. So, what can the individual say or do, when s/he realizes that hierarchy demand dogma instead of facts, political-correctness instead of actual true data? We PUNT!
only simple algebra is needed--Einstein said understanding the elecron Was key---guess what, it is a long but fast moving helical string of 1/h-squared Higgs particles, or 1/h photons in helical string tandem where one Photon is one helical sting turn of 1/h G-size Higgs. Every R-size spinning volume of spacetime has an outer surface defined by moving Higgs particles so that mass moving from one R-size point to another spin-touching next door on six sides, is R/G = 3(v-squared) where v is the average speed of surface defining Higgs particle movment. Mass is not Volume/devided by vague "density', rather it is the surface count of Higgs particle the are doing the helical string moving. We can only crudely sense/measure the along helix centerline movement of the Higgs particles in gross parallel --where E = nhf = (nh)f - Mf = M(v-squared)along a projected centerline. Both mass and energy are quantized a h grams and h ergs---h-symmetry in cgs units demands we use only cgs units for both celestial mechanics and detailed physics---math derivatives are not necessary and only blind us to frequenxw pulse level detail- where n is an Anthropic-necessary-constant so that n = 1/h--and E is always numerically equal to frequency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust watching objective phenomena is like a cat playing with a string. It says nothing about Reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee http://www.rufusgwarren.com/ on Modern Physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Physicists don't know meta-physics, don't know multi-dimensionality, they don't know much of anything, do they? So why are they talking over our heads again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of Morgan's post was over my head except the n = Anthropic-necessary-constant bit. I know what that is, I just don't know what to make of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Higgs bosons are so prevalent as you specify in your interesting physical description of the electron, why are the so difficult to detect in particle accelerator experiments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my (conceptual) description of quantum mass above, there is no Higgs particle mediating the exchange of mass effects among particles: mass is an external field of potential energy produced by the self-opposed redirection and reconfiguration of the kinetic energy of wave self-propagation imparted by emission.
As such this external energy field of mass, which partially absorbs the kinetic energy imparted to the subject particles, is both dissipated and applied to the momentum of artifacts following collision. There is not particle produced by the application of mass to particles, just as there is no particle produced by the external application of any kinetic energy to particles.
On the concept of "multi-universe" and "parallel universes" in which string theory is supposed to confirm the existence of. I fell that in essence we want to limit the scope of the space, time, matter and the EM spectrum to the confines of the finite, but express it in the in vagueness where time has a beginning and subsequently has an end, and that matter is confined into the frame work of only this universe; with the exception of mirror images of this all encompassing universe. Are we, again, saying that we are the center of all that exists? The believe in infinite reflections of ourselves, we can say that there is only one universe and infinite variations of us. But I ask the question as if time, space, and matter are infinite, but the sum of matter and energy are finite. If time and space were infinite and has no beginning and has no end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe a re the center of all that has and shall be.
What would happen If the sum of matter is infinite, but the sum of matter in the universe is finite; could one prove that the sum of universes is existence is infinite; making the sum of matter infinite? How would this, if any, effect the theory of multi-universes and parallel universes? Would we dare contemplate the idea that we are not the only universe is existence? What came existed before the big bang? Another form of this universe? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Remember Rod Sterling?
Here's a nutty post which I want someone to help me on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs all theories originate in the brain, is it reasonable to suppose that everything the brain theorises about is also in the brain?
Is the unification of the forces therefore a property of the brain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the perspectival view from which we 'see' the universe is the place where these forces are unified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr am just talking ''''Off the top of my head''' .......................or from inside it somewhere?
If you substitute "mind" for "brain" I think you are actually on to something. Mr. Weinberg, and virtually every other leading physicist, are "realists," following a worldview philosophy classifies as "naive realists." For example, in his book, Dreams of a Final Theory, Mr. Weinberg acknowledges aht his working philosophy entails "a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories." (see p. 167). In other words, modern scientists assume such an objective world exists because they believe the assumption is necessary to practice science. This objective-world model, however, has two fundamental flaws: First, quantum theory itself shows a connection between consciousness and the "quantum waves" that make up the world. Therefore, under science's own theories there is no true "objective world." Second, the "objective world" happens to be Immanuel Kant's (widely considered as one of the greatest thinkers who ever lived) "thing-in-itself," an "occult entity" we can never know. It is my view that modern science's insistence that any "theory of everything" must include only objective particles and not consciousness (or mind, spirit, etc.) explains why it will never find such a theory with the objective world model. It should also be said that Mr. Weinberg, constrained with his severe form of "realism," is also famous for concluding that the universe is absurd and "pointless." (See The First Three Minutes, p. 154). This is what happens when our leading scientists remove mind, emotion, and spirit from a worldview: all they have left is an incomplete theory and a pointless universe. (For additional discussion on this topic see The Heaven at the End of Science.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActullay there is a far simpler equation for the mass of the electron [1].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisme= (h/c^2)(c^2.5/4pi) = hc^0.5/4pi
and this equation dovetails in with quantum gravity [2].
1. Harmonic quintessence and the formulation of a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319.
2. String quintessence and the formulation of advanced qauntum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377.
What is in the way going from GUT to TOE?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLEGs Large Energy Gap. No accelerator on earth or heaven will be able to confirm TOE.If Higgs is not found?
Whole standard model is then up for sale including a few
Nobels.
In my way of thinking we should only try explain stable particles(those that do not decay)electron, proton, photon etc before going further.
I too believe in strings and can account for the relative mass of the Proton and its resonances(fundamental Baryons).
Tissa Perera
Hello Eureka999,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theorist Alexander Burinskii has modeled the electron as a gravitationally confined, naked, ring singularity. His most recent paper "Regularized Kerr-Newman Solution as a Gravitating Soliton", date, 27 Aug 2010, is posted (search by title). The electron mass equation:
m = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG)^1/4 kilogram
strongly supports the Burinski concept. This mass equation is precisely correct when the gravitational constant has the value 6.67174557x10^-11. A G value found Sept 9, 2010 using laser interferomitry is 6.67234x10x10^-11. With this G value, the electron mass is 9.109179255x10^-31kg. This is 0.9999777 times the present CODATA electron mass value.
The electron is linked to Planck units in this mass equation. Search "Electron as a ring singularity" for added information.
The photon with energy equal to the mass energy of two electron mass particles is directly related to the dimension 2pi (Planck length) (3/2)^1/2. This length is (3pi hG/c^3)^1/2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphoton wavelength = h/2mc = 1.21316x10^-12 meter
(h/2mc)^2 = (3pi hG/c^3)^1/2 (2pi)^2 (c)(one second)
(h/2mc) = 2pi (3pi hG/c)^1/4 = 1.21316x10^-12 meter
This wavelength equation implies that the true gravitational constant value is very close to 6.6717452x10^-11. We can expect that improved methods for measuring the gravitational constant G may confirm this value.
An improved value for the gravitational constant has now become an important issue for theorists. If we can confirm that there is a specific relationship between Planck units and subatomic particles (electrons) then we can begin to understand the relationship between the Planck constant and the gravitational constant. A new simple set of equations can then be tested. An example follows. This equation requires the G value 6.6717452x10^-11 that was determined earlier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(h/2mc) = 1.21316x10^-12 = (3Gm)^1/3 (2pi)^5/3
Ths equation (when confirmed) allows the product of h and G to be precisely specified. To a theorist, this is a very important step.
The quantized electron mass has an explanation and a predicted value. Theorists are challanged to evaluate the new electron equations to verify that they are consistant with all known electron properties. Understanding the electron is key. The electron mass, muon mass and tau mass are each related to the Planck mass by three factors. The first two factors are (1/2) and (2/3) exponent 1/2. The third factor is the square root of the ratio, 4pi(3Gm/c^2) divided by (Compton wavelength of the particle). This third factor is the gravitational time dilation factor that applies at the collapsed particle radius, 3Gm/c^2. For the (stable) electron particle, this time diltion factor is the square root of the limit time dilation factor. This is the ratio 1.0250286x10^-22 seconds per second. I have said this is the golden ratio because it applies only to the stable electron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany theorists have expected that the electron mass should be related to the Planck mass in some way. This relationship has now been defined and so, electron properties can predict the product of h times G. This is a very important step that requires thorough evaluation.