Origin of Particles

0:00 On the origin of particles. Well, I want to look into how a formatorial theory, with its starting success with the alpha calculation, the five-structure constant calculation, together with the amazing difference between the spacing out of these constants, including the very large one, the amazing and a coupling concert, and that very big one. I want to use that to try and get the vision of how we can jump into physics. Long ago, Pierre Noyes taught me that perhaps it was on the floor before I went from. Will you be using it? Will you be using this? well noise pointed out to me that The counting of interactions, the idea of probabilities providing cross-sections, was the real entree into experimental knowledge, in the high energy field, that is. Now, of course, we want to claim that the coupling constants are, as given by the hierarchy, followed from that outcome, as we may develop it. But in order to do that we do have to be careful that the precise properties of the hierarchical

2:30 of construction should be followed exactly and this particularly includes particularly refers to to it to the support yeah I thought I'm sorry I'm I'm just scared of my thoughts are I refer particularly to the picture that we have of iteration from a background of unknown character which generates through the algebraic processes and with an emphasis on the notion of process that you're building something up and then having built a You flop back to the beginning again, repeat it, so this iteration is going on all the time. Well now, these calculations depend on, therefore, on this particular algebraic construction, and in the last couple of years, a client with some interaction for me has been perfecting his calculation more precise. My part has only really been, I mean, there has been a continuous to and fro between us, but my part has really only been concerned with the presentation of the work. I don't, you know, the serious work is all his. However, this has now reached a stage where we hope we can put it down and use it as the nucleus of something which presents a scheme for a much bigger range of physics. and I think that the first step has to be into the into the picture of the particles as we know them now from the high energy field not as we know them from classical physics really but as they as we're getting new knowledge with its own characteristics which is very separate but we should expect those to emerge and hope to follow the program initiated described to me by yeah starting

5:00 with numbers of interactions but these interaction strengths of course are the characteristic numbers of those no oh and I have some I guess a client best we now reasonably complete the calculation of that accurate calculation of that 1-3-7 constant. It is, well, it's two decimal places. That doesn't experiment. That should be good enough now so where do we start in looking for structure in the hierarchy that was who enables to cut to cotton on to this extremely bewildering range of knowledge which constitutes high energy physics well I jump straight in and take take guidance on the way things work particularly with room relations course I accept that all right I'm going to assume that these are fundamentally combinatorial structures which they have found necessary in putting together patterns of particles and that one must take that very seriously as a sort of combinatorial basis. Indeed I had a long correspondence with Jones Lindsay who I was unfortunately not here and he sort of supported me in this idea that one really must accept that the corks are a patterning the scheme of patterning very fundamental that combinatorial in character and but really you get this there if you think of them as a new kind of particle banging about in the target nucleus they are more fundamental that they others to say they put the older brother they can they arise at a more primitive stage and we haven't got particles at all yet so that's the that's the sort of picture just an

7:30 attempted scheme I'm trying to work on and you can see why I've got this group of provocative would be provocative talk of the origin of part of this talk. Now, going back to early history, I was looking around for, what I'm trying for is a very simple scheme which will give me a guideline connecting these apparently wildly disparate pictures on the one hand that presented by the hierarchy on the other that presented by what you can glean from knowledge of particle physics and there and the concepts of government that have been have arisen through that I need something that's more doesn't have to be detail the detail but but it must be capable of into the detail as the complexity of the area of interest grows, I think it's a very, very much complicated course of the hierarchy where you don't have to get everything at one stage or one level it develops, but you do have to see how the principle of development will take place. So I should be talking, I'm now bringing up these, I should be putting in some bits and pieces, a sort of nucleus in which one hopes of the way. And these remarks about the corks start that. Now, I would like to pull onto this and look carefully at the first stage and go back in history, always, to my mind, a sensible thing to do, to the first stage where the ideas, of course, emerge. I think the history suggests, you know, this is all very tender interest, and those who all of you mostly know far more about this than I do, will probably be jumping up and down, but I'll do my best. The origin of the essential three requires us to think anew. We're beset by an array of threes in the hierarchy picture. This one cannot be the number of discriminately closed

10:00 subsets that play such an important part in the hierarchical structure because that's used already. Neither can it be related to the three-dimensionality of space, not that the, not that the, our energy theorists would suggest it was, but still we might be suggested to go that part, but that would be wrong because the dimensionality of space concerns the number There's a number of interactions you'll have to go through to get a complete construction. But it does appear to arise from, well in the picture, back in the history, one needed to have two quarks of opposite charge to provide three possibilities. You could have two together to give a neutral neutron, you could have two like that and then add a third to give a charged proton, if the third addition was the positive one. The possibility that you could get a negative part of the symmetrical with the proton, therefore presumably the electron doesn't seem to have been used, presumably because people thought that in fact they were dealing with heavy nuclei and that precluded that, there's a all the speculation. I don't know if that's the way they put it. But anyway, the vital thing is that you do get three possibilities of association out of these two initial things, and the number of possibilities, the combinatorial structure, which is important, and these are the core, because that's my picture of them. But the point is that this is interview of charge well it's a free company you can do that if you want as long as you're consistent stick to it and don't presume you've already got something with blue sparks and all the stuff that usually says it was charged of that you've got to construct ladies what work is about but that is the first job of this of this because I'm putting forward to try and guide us through this amazing and high-flying or formidable array of knowledge that they call high energy physics. So because of this simple beginning, I'm not, I'm now, I'm assuming that we can start with

12:30 stable particles. Hopefully, I will then be able to develop that into more interesting cases, or more Boutre cases of which we'll hear so much about, but I shan't get as far as talking about that, as long as I keep saying, when I see the way open to complexifying the picture, to get Now, I said what these, what these three didn't come from, but I didn't say what does come And there's another possibility, which I typically want, if you're putting up a fall vector and considering interplay under the processes in the hierarchy of discrimination, then the situation proceeds in stages. If you have nought in one stage then you've got three elements to play with left, the free play generates three possibilities, it runs through the three possibilities, if you've got all noughts in two of them then you've got a simpler situation with only two, and one left, and that's more limited still. I don't talk about the case where you've got no laws, because there's no freedom of play, everything's in fact how people aren't just doing it, making it changes. So that's where I find that the number three, this is a bit different from regarding things from the position point of view of good in algebra, Well, you don't make this distinction between zeros and ones, and they're treated symmetrically. But as we've many emphasised it, we think the discrimination of calculus is not the same as Boolean.

15:00 However, this number of elements in play, one, two, or three, is called the Hamming number. But as I say, it's important that it's obscured in all the linear algebra, where not one is sedentary. It is as though if you're at one stage, you're stuck there. You can't, no natural player system will generate once in another stage. That's where the constriction comes from. Well now, the other job is spin, where we've got charge and spin, and we've got to invent a picture. See, I've been inventing a picture of charge after I start. That's a pretty adventure of spin. Now, what would you say about spin? Now, this is more tricky and more difficult to describe. A careful scrutiny of the history, which we talked about, makes us reject the view, which is so commonly put forward, that spin is an abstract algebraic construct. people will tell you, as soon as you start asking leading questions about what's been implied in quantum theory, they'll tell you, it's just a piece of algebra. You don't have to give that its own interpretation. But actually, if you look into it, it really does have to be very experimentally immediate. As immediate as the sodium lines would change your argument. anything. But on the other hand, it's not, you can't go all the way to classical theory and assume that it's a classical angle of momentum, which is what Halsmith and Gulenbeck assume, only to be confronted with Heisenberg's question, it may ask a factor of two, the his basic character was spin, wasn't quite incredible, so how was that, well of course there's a long story about this, but I found it very interesting that John Conway yesterday put tremendous emphasis on his, in his presentation, that if we've got a spin or an anti-spin,

17:30 there are three possibilities you can have and in construction is cubes and stuff, remember don't try and find it all back in quantum theory it's the most obvious thing you can ride happily over the quantum mechanics where what is absolutely experimentally immediate forces itself on your attention is this is this constriction that he was referring to well now how do we put that into the picture well now my picture is that the germ of it appears through the fact of changing levels and continues on upwards otherwise there's an ambiguity or or complementarity, you might call it, not the mix of a loop, not the enforced process. In the hierarchy, algebra allows an element to represent a combination of activities as you change level. Now, I try allusively to express the matter by saying that when one of these, one of the elements, which is there are elements which could be represented in the second level which operate on the elements that connect up elements at the first level but are themselves not represented at the first level. And these things, when one of these appears, it causes what we see as two levels to be successively in play as a single action. And therefore the one and picture is born. And that's what we call spin, is two possibilities. Now, I'm well aware how dreamy this is, this sounds. However, I do take it, I do think it's, I do mean it

20:00 quite seriously. They just say, well, if these things happen successfully, what is the time that's involved but this is a time continuum and here I see a very close connection with what Lou teaches us about this not commentative approach with particularly with his steps that, where, as he stresses, you're going from one stage to another, from one to the other. Yes, he calls them steps. But, and here, he wouldn't wish to say, I think, that you're dealing with time continuing. Just concentrate on the step, and the non-conversity. I'm sorry I'm presenting this so badly. I hope a vague idea of what I'm trying to say gets over, not doing well for them, so sorry. It's fine, sir. Anyway, I look forward with a lot of pleasure to following Lewis' algebra in more detail I'm tying up this so as to develop what I need, and just to see these notions of spin and the first place with charge. But I suppose charge and the first place with then spin, particularly, as providing, as leading into, well, finally leading into classical electromagnetic electromagnetism. Because I know he's written a lot about that and I don't understand it, but I'm hoping to be able to get to it in a minute. If you're lucky you might have gravity as well as classical electromagnetism all linked together out of these commutators. Do you think so? Well, yes, I do think so. I've got reasons for thinking so, so I won't go into that. Yes. My feeling is that you have to set up certain gravity a different way. It's particular. I know it's very encouraging what you say. Well as Lou pointed out yesterday, we do have

22:30 some field equations which look like gravity field equations which have come out of this heap of computators and it may be nonsense if we're in which case it's my nonsense and I'm to blame but there are reasons to think that you can you work and mix electromagnetism in with it I mean there's the Feynman-Dyson thing does electromagnetism and there are now ancient theories of how you mix electromagnetism with general relativity the sausage machine that Lou has been investigating and I have been investigating more or less in parallel without conferring with each other looks as if it might do this might do the same thing might mix mix them up but remember the thrust is how do we get classical from quantum not how do we go down from quantum to something more fundamental so it's a different right way you mean the opposite don't you i mean not how do we get classical from quantum but how do we get caught from classical but how do we No, no, I do mean what I said. What? That we're trying to get classical from quantum, right? But the thrust of our stuff is in that direction rather than down from quantum to something more fundamental like the hierarchy. Well, maybe both. It could be both, yes. If you look for discrete models in the non-commutative realm, you're going down. Yes. And if you think about what is a commutator after all, it's a certain kind of discrimination. So the question, the conceptual question is, what is the relationship between the sort of discrimination that is a commutator and the fundamental discriminations that are happening? I don't know the answer to that question. There's lots of questions.

25:00 With regard to relativity, I suppose a strong feeling of mine is that there's a fundamental problem in existing physics, which we've somehow got to reconcile according to theory and gravitation. which for us just drops out of the picture you don't need they are different methods and they're both the right they arise i mean the fee of the corresponding fields arise at different levels in that sense they are already unified what you do about the details is not enough of it you don't have to there's no incompatibility there i think that's a very major point right yes i mean i agree with that so what you were saying is really agreeing with you the other end of the bus, really. Well, it's a long path to go from any particle-like electron, an angular momentum like critical, but that can be added on to other angular momentum. I noticed that in the practice of nuclear physics, it's just automatically assumed that antidote sometimes with excruciating consequences yes I study the dose plus other so he tries to keep the worries inspired by me in a separate compartment from what he does most of the time. I'd rather understand that. Just go, you might call a whole, whole classical just for the moment, to consider the end looking forward, consider two test particles exhibiting mechanics and electromagnetism respectively. There's a change here, right in the heart of classical physics, which mirrors the sort of level change that I'm talking about. In mechanics, we're familiar with,

27:30 with a, we'll call it a test particle, which moves in the same plane as the force applied to it, as the acceleration of force produces is in the same plane as the motion. Then, if we're looking just as trying to abstract from the notion of dimensionality to the combinatorics of this. There was this big change where the big change of electromagnetism classically was saying, well, now let's consider the more complicated situation where the application, of course, produces an acceleration which is a different plane, which the writer wants to, and of course, obviously, though, it's a standard structure, I guess, breaking the picture down to these elements. But you're getting a more you've introduced quite deliberately introduced a more complicated descriptive language, and there's a parallel between that and the complexification you introduce in your language when you advance from the two-level to the three-level in the hierarchy. So in that sense, you've got a starting point or something you want to bear in mind developing as you try to get more complicated field-theoretical concepts. Now, I thought that I would make a short list of the notions which also need introduction. Having got my first, what I call germs, to sit in a killer, I'm just going to make some remarks, if you take a rest of time. How much time is going? I've got 20 minutes. We've got almost half now.

30:00 I should say that my starting point, which is that you've got to, I mean, in the position we're in, with a successful calculation of that, you've really got to concentrate on the high energy field it's compatible with that it's a very different picture in physics you normally think you've got a world and we know a lot about the world and somebody brings on a new theory and you assume it can be trusted on to the rest you know you can add it in a plutonium platonic receptacle kind of view you can always add on something new and let it interact of what's gone before. The trouble in this particular situation is that you can't do that. You've got to, you've really got to construct new beginnings, in particular new beginnings are dynamic, as I was trying to do this, which has been abstracted from all the historical the detail that we learned in school and try, however, to cover it inadequately, and this morning I'm particularly inadequate, to get the basic ideas out of which I'm talking about. Now, if that policy is right, well, whether that's right or not, or whether the discussion, whether it's right or not. I would be more than happy if the rest of this session were, you know, people thought they wanted to discuss that enteric piece and say nonsense and so on. That would, I should be more than happy to see that discussion as well. As I say, whether my policy is right or not. Now, the light is still exposed. I'm going to let that go out. I'm going to go back.

32:30 I'm going to try to run out before I get to that, but I'm going to put this into a Now these are the points, concepts which are familiar which occur a lot in the higher degree physics. They're a bit diverse as well that I would like to say about each as a far as I see that it's needed to be drawn into. On the subject mass, I find it very pleasant. Do you remember what Pierre said last year? was remembering his first interaction with me and how he began to take me seriously because I drew his attention to the fact that Vance was a uniquely important quantum number. He didn't quite follow my arguments. I would rather he suffered a good argument in any way my point is that the other quantum numbers are expressible as sensible or non-possibilities. Mass is not. It isn't the nature of mass that it's additive, or generally it's so treated, whether it has to be or not, or whether the additivity could be swapped over onto some other concept, I don't know, but it does seem to me to have a unique property. And that would pose a very real problem. Now, well, in high-energy physics, they tend to add it, don't they, and get away with adding, but in gravitational theory, relativistic gravitational theory you add masses and you get something different than just the sum because there's the gravitational energy there true and if it's black holes you're adding which are worse it's even worse

35:00 yes yes well maybe there's a lesson to be learned from there but I don't know what the lesson is? No. Well, the situation goes back to Newport. I think it was in the context of Matt's name, does the particle, is the particle the source of the gravitational field? I think it was in response to that question. He said, hypothesis is non-finger, or whatever he actually said. I'm not going to involve myself in discussing that. He didn't It's huge. I think he's just thought, as he says elsewhere, that God made it, had the bright idea of making an awful lot of, of course, hard, impenetrable, messy, even so very hard as an effort to break all the way away. Well, if you can follow that, follow. Anyway, it isn't part of the new kind of theory, and there's a vacuum there. I'm sorry, there's a gap there. Now, forgive the devil his due, the hierarchy theorists are not unaware of this problem. They feel the need to say what mass is in a way that in classical physics, for the return of reason this is just me and so far as I've been able to sort it out at this level you know what is what are they really to treat see there's a lot a huge body of experiment for logic relates to the masses of different particles. Particles differ in the amount of mass you can possess, even though particles of given sort have the same mass. And so the particle mass is like classical mass in that it can take a range of numerical values. It's difficult in not being able to move continuously between these values, but additivity is being introduced. And I think I think this is a very good reason why Heineken physics is feeling compulsion to understand the nature of mass and, I mean, should be applauded for that and how it's generated.

37:30 Robert's understanding is hard to come by and has led into some strange inquiries. The hunt for Higgs boson was inspired by attempts to provide this understanding by Higgs and others and I'll make a few remarks about that. I don't suppose anybody would agree with me with my, with my gloss on what they say, but toward his worth. There it is. The basic form of that picture is a bootstrap process, whereby particles build each other up by their being present together. In the nature of the case, one of them has to start the ball rolling, and that is the particle postulated by Higgs. And that particle is bare of all attributes except mass, simply because one has to start somewhere and one has to have a word for the attribute with which one starts. To make this process work there must be a finite number of particles for there to be a top one. Analoges are something that makes lines and solutions where one of them requires an effective mass, so it's interacting with the iron surrounding it is many times greater than its pre-mass. But, analogies like this, which are used to lead readers on with a similar sort of reality in the interactions of the frozen case, are pretty dicey, some of them are in quite bizarre. The whole point of the bootstrap, if we can abstract from what Higgs and Hedell are saying, is to get away from these classical time-world mechanisms and models, precisely because mass is the first additive concept to be introduced, and that's how we explain its nature. All these sort of physical analogies already presume this existence, which of course is just a little bit. Now, it may be that the uncleanness of the status of the privileged bootstrap argument should be partly responsible for the popular insistence of finding the explosion. There has been people who have gone into print saying they don't believe they'll never find the explosion at all. Well, I suppose people think they could feel more sure about the bootstrap mechanism,

40:00 if such a particle could be found experimentally. There then may seem to be a clear yes or no to be got from the experimental search, and that would take away often the conceptual information. Well, I don't know whether you think that this is a travesty of the thinking underlying to amass, whether it's even not proper to identify with the emotions outside, not the emotions of the ego, ideas prompting the big construction, but I think that has to Well, it's tempting to think that the related idea could arise from the, in the hierarchical I'm looking forward, though. Do you imagine M being ratcheted out step by step to the integral value 1, 3, 7? Well, now, of course, it's not. M looks ratcheted. M appears in the prime structure constant because it's right into Z over AC, and M appears in H. Dimensionally, if I put square backwards in the dimensionality, if I put the square, Thank you very much. So it's not M, we have to deal with E and F, E and F. Now in some of the work that you in which I was found extremely helpful.

42:30 Peter Rowlands had his main suggestion in which he had an iterative process. He didn't have a nice stuff in process as we have, but he was suggesting that a combination deal with he and Ed in combination and wrecked them up gradually. I can't remember how, I mean, his was quite a complicated picture of how the writer he had been placed. He just suggested, and I thought there was an analogy there which was interesting. Let's say he had a complicated conventorial theory to count on step-by-stepness, which I can't go into further. It starts from a detailed theory of charge exertion. And of course, it doesn't, you know, abstract charge exertion. By charge, you mean it's from the charge. Well, that's the future. Well, we've found ourselves hitting the position where we've got a force to have, as we see it, concept which strongly reminds us of the fact that, I don't know how strongly it will, and I do have a bit, I don't know, but what I'm meaning is that Now, for us there's an outside, and interactions are generated from that outside, which is not, of course, a spatial outside, but is in some sense separate, and the hierarchical

45:00 construction proceeds from interaction with that and the this has analogous with the high-energy concept of the bank book because there again they seem to be forced to contemplate this something rather similar process in which there were interactions coming in from outside they But there was a difference, there was a difference between the construction and ordinary physical space. Of course, not going our way and saying this is the beginnings of physical space and there is no other beginning, but we're supposing the whole thing was set within a physical space and indeed a physical space which in some weird way incorporated all the whole classical physics as well because it was created on but there is that analogy there i think that view is a disaster yourself that you know the conventional view that the arena is there the arena of space-time and you put things in it um i think that has led physics up the garden path Really? Well it still is leading up. Oh, yes. Yes, yes. I think that's a...I might be calling that a tectonic receptacle. Well, the vacuum idea has further content of course. It's normal to trace it back to the zero point energy, referring to the residual half H of action which cannot be eliminated. Now, normally you start with a Heisenberg uncertainty relation, but from the point of view I'm proposing it's better to do things in reverse and use it to introduce the Heisenberg principle for the film itself. Well, de novo, for the first time, well, okay, so where is the starting point, well the starting point is the spin? I mean, this develops from, as I was saying earlier, with spin, it's my initial job, but it's absolute fundamental, experimental availability,

47:30 which overrides all the related connections with the complicated crumbling elements. In other words, this is where the harbindable notion, what is normally called the harbindable action, is introduced, the white introduced. of course, if we can perform our abstraction, which is even more thorough, I think Tony was suggesting we're pointing out that one, then you don't have to track all the history with you all the time. Anyway, this was a constituent idea from which they grew up, it's generally in the background of, I don't know what, they're not called particles either in the background, some virtual particles, virtual particles, yes. What is a particle when it's virtual? Anyway, Now again, and in spite of my castigations of yesterday's, I am grateful for help from Peter Rowland's. So I've quoted him before, but I'll presume to quote him again, when it comes to talking about the bank room, and in the context of a couple of conferences. He says, the idea of an alpha is that you have an isolated charge that still interacts with the vacuum to produce virtual bosons, photons or whatever, by emission or absorption. Where another charge is present, the bosons can be emitted by one and absorbed by another, by the other, in a two-way process. Virtual interaction with the back room is similar to real interaction with a real field, which is of course simply just a group of real charge of some kind. And the back room acts as a virtual field. And again it says, or further it says, the measurement of coupling between the charging field is the coupling constant alpha.

50:00 In the case of a coupling involving one charge emitting or radiating a photon and another charge absorbing it in a neutral process, it goes in both ways simultaneously. The rate of the interaction or probability of a unit time that the process will happen, as reported to Alpha. and a particle is charging randomly radiates photons at a rate that's a constant of nature scattering and additional absorption are essentially the same processes as in the final diagram of that well it only does that when it's being accelerated it only does that when it's been accelerated you accelerate the charge it radiates but if it's traveling along uniformly in the good old newtonian way it doesn't but it's traveling in the back of my turn of that makes difficult well I suppose the vacuum gun goes and makes other virtual particles that interact with it If there's another particle to interact with it, there's a force, therefore it is oxide-reaching. Yes. If there is another particle to interact with it. Yes, and the vacuum, at least transitory, manufactures these things all over the place. Can you give your answer? I'm totally saying that it doesn't interact, it doesn't produce these bolt-humps, etc. unless it's accelerating. However, if it is interacting with another charge, it is accelerating, so it is producing them. Oh yes, all right. But we don't speak of that for accelerations. No, totally brought up the same thing. Totally brought up the same thing. But what I'm saying is the vacuum does produce virtual particles for a short time and then they go away. Now if the times overlap for two or three or more, they will for a moment interact. And the interactions will make more of course. Is there a sequentiality in the vacuum? I don't know.

52:30 Well, I don't know what it means, no, except it came out of the discussion. Oh, you mean, is there a sequence in an interaction? That's all at once, that's one of them. Any interaction must be all at once. The gauge of varying must be all at once. which is yet another puzzle if you want to avoid getting to group structures you've got five minutes left to do it ah I'll try and do that I think I better I was a part of the strange forces I really only wanted to say that this is the invention of experience, but this is not what it is truly presented to be. If we look into the matter of the thinking of the people carefully, we find that it's much more aim of introducing some kind of abstract interaction, which is not described and can't be described either classically or in the context. So there's a discussion by England with Tony He was, I think, puzzled that he'd been unable to find a proper mechanism. I've been unable to find a proper description from anybody, that's the... Well, yes, he does. Anyway, my conclusion was that it is, of course, an overwhelmingly important notion which must be described combinatorially at that stage. You can't look back, I mean, it comes into the construction of theory. Well now let's go back before there was any theory and say where it comes from from theory. That was about to leave that on that. A few words about the week of that. Well in the first place, with our succession of so-called coupling concepts, people would be right to say, well what do you make of weakening action that is so profound? How can you, I mean, you mustn't you admit that you're actually all up at the pub,

55:00 completely wrong, talking nonsense if you haven't got a place for that. But I think there's forces to that, so that explains what I've been scratching about to see where it conceivably comes from. Quite a while back I observed that there was one point at which one might wriggle up of of the finality of the sequence of interactions given by the Archer-Rose algebra. The final stop occurs because the 10 to the 39 discriminant-declosed subsets cannot be accommodated in the 256 times 256 places which are provided for it at that level. But I said to myself, ah, but 256 times 266, it can have been places to accept that number. And maybe that gives us a proportion, a small proportion, which might correspond to the interaction space i mean that's what pierre noise said what he does he says that's the weak interaction reciprocal constant one over six thousand sixty five thousand well i'm glad he says it but of course he got it from me i mean i suggested to him as i remember against considerable opposition of that yeah sorry i did have to defend myself on that one well it's not a very good value but it's a bit of dubious and struggle i don't know how i was hoping again for james linds to be however how reliable the current state of knowledge about the definition of the positive weak interaction strength this i really don't know um it's probably more confused than they can to admit um but as i said i i don't i don't know okay so which energy do you mean if you mean it as measured it's about a quarter to a fifth of the

57:30 of the electric It's four or five times the electric interaction. You mean there's a range of four to five, depending on how it was? Yeah, the five structure constant for the weak interaction is about four to five times that. What do you mean by the electric? I mean the alpha. The alpha? The alpha. It's about the alpha for weak is about four or five times that for electric. Are you saying, so what I call out is 1 over 1 through 7,000 miles? Yeah, but that's the electric, that's the measure of the electric. Oh, I think the electric, yeah, all right, yes, yes. So, and this is only a quarter of that, you'd say, or? No, it's about 4 or 5 times that. It's a quarter of the 137, and it's about 4 or 5 times that. Well, when does all that come from? I thought it was about, um... It's about 1 over... The figure I've got is 1.01 times 10 to the minus 5. Well, it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about squared, that's probably G squared. They sometimes do over 4 pi and things like that. But if you want a direct comparison, it's about 4 or 5 times the electric. Well, then it isn't weak, is it? No, it's not weak. No, it's weak and more strong. Yeah, that's right. It's never was weak. Yeah. It causes multiple big events in the universe. because it's relatively weak you're running into the end of your allocated time the output perhaps you should resolve the question so that will save you getting the true structure well, okay I was going into some statistical improvements on that argument which we do suggest to Clive but we do assuming that that was all very satisfactory and tied down nicely. Should we thank Ted and then... Anyway, Salama said that the weak forces and let them open it. Thank you. I'm not the same. I'm not the same person. Two, three. Hello. I want to make a comment on your remark mass as compared to the other kinds of quantum numbers.

1:00:00 Tony raised one issue about the additivity of mass in general relativity, and there's a corresponding point to be made about the other quantum numbers, the N, L, and F in chemistry. There is a true but not well understood pattern followed in the periodic table in the filling of atomic states that you go on in the table. It has been known for a long time that there's a pretty good correlation between the order in which those states fill up and a combination of bottom numbers, N plus L. Now, I've been looking into this myself in recent times, and I think I can improve on that a little bit to even explain a little bit more than that explains about the filling, and that the improvement comes from looking at a further combination of quantum numbers where it's N plus J over 2. That seems to give you even better insight into what order these states are going to fill up in. Now, all I can do is report to you this empirical fact that some additive combination of quantum numbers seems to carry some information. Nobody knows why. It would be great to find out why, but there it is. I have no idea. It simply bears on your remark about this. I initially think that suggests a clean additivity of math and a clean non-additivity of the other foreign members. And that now is foggy in both departments. I perhaps led the discussion a little bit up the gun when I only said well masses don't add properly in general relativity in a way they don't add properly when making atoms either do they because if you take identifiable particles that scintillation is an individual electron or proton and so on and then you add these up to say make a hydrogen atom or a deuterium atom you find that the total mass of that thing measured in the same sort of way isn't the sum of the masses of the pieces because there are packing fractions

1:02:30 which have gone away when you put them together nuclear energy has gone away Yes. The other thing I was going to remark on, as Professor Jones might have said, it depends what you mean by spin. If you say spin is an angular momentum, then you've got three-dimensional space whether you like it or not, because angular momentum, you can't define it in two-dimensional space. so if perchance and of course Dirac would say that spin is angular momentum because that's the way he deduced its presence maybe that argument is circular but if it is angular momentum as classically defined you know you have an axis and you have a momentum in a vector in a particular direction you have a line joining them uh you can't make that construction in two dimensions you can only make it in three comment about that um you know there was this idea of panels a long time ago to take just the patterns of the representations of angular man yeah which don't exist in the space of all and look at the mathematics of that and then start putting it back together in networks and finds that you can almost reconstruct three-dimensional space from it so that's a hint about you know getting to three-dimensional space from a deeper level right Tim Penner has ever complete that investigation like my ideas we call them i i regarded as incomplete yeah he never published the proof of the theorem but a student of this did oh yeah but but the thing is that there's still more to know about it it needs more investigation even now still see he used to prophesy about this ages ago frameworks and uh yeah i tried very hard to get him to write it up for quantum theory beyond right but he didn't and he wrote about something else he wrote a sketch of it in quantum theory yeah this is yes yes yes excuse me and then i have one final question which requires a yes

1:05:00 you talked about um taking theories or new theories or new pieces of theories and sort might call the current theory. And at some point, presumably this process cannot carry on and you have to, as it were, start again. Would you say that our work and the work is a start again, or are we trying to patch on existence? Perhaps it doesn't quite exhibit what I'm trying to get at it, not quite. It's more they go to this scene I don't think they can co-exist but you know we have a universe and then lots of theories tell us about different aspect of it all right so with one I was saying as far as our particular view is concerned you can't do it that way so in that sense of patch copy time thank you very much Ted that's the end of Ted Buston's talk