Sunday, December 12, 2021

Are scalar lepto-quarks [if they exist] evidence for (revised) string theory?


In the octonionic theory, prior to the Left-Right symmetry breaking [=EW symmetry breaking] mass and electric charge are not defined. Both these are emergent concepts. The fundamental entities from which quarks and leptons emerge are lepto-quarks, and although spin angular momentum can be defined from the matrix-valued Lagrangian dynamics, spin is not quantised in the pre-stage. Only a length scale is associated with a lepto-quark, and this is order unity in Planck length units.
It might then be plausible to identify these lepto-quark states as the fundamental extended objects of the octonionic theory, and one way to think of the octonionic theory is as a revised string theory. If current experiments are pointing to violation of Lepton Flavour Universality, and if this violation is due to the existence of lepto-quark states, then the BSM physics we are seeing might be evidence for octonionic theory/string theory. The Planck scale is reset to the electro-weak scale by the inflationary cosmological expansion just after the big bang.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

A few popular references on the octonionic theory

If you are interested in the evolution of the octonionic theory, the following are some popular video lectures I made, some talk recordings, a blog, and a semi-technical 2017 article. Only in 2020, the octonions got added to this attempt at quantum gravity. Since then it has become an attempt at quantum gravity and unification.


Does nature play dice? (2014)

Spontaneous quantum gravity (2019)

Aikyons, octonions and unification (2020)

Octonions, elementary particles and the unification of forces (2021)

Elementary particles and the magic of the octonions (2021)

Quantum gravity and the atoms of space-time-matter (2021)

Gravitation: from Newton to Padmanabhan and beyond (2021)

Thinking about quantum gravity, video lecture series (2018)

This blog is also helpful:

Helpful article

Friday, December 3, 2021

Elementary particles, black holes, and the octonions

In this approach, quantum theory, and gravitation, both are emergent thermodynamic phenomena, emerging from the same underlying, more general, theory.
If they are both emergent thermodynamic phenomena, in what way do they differ from each other?
Quantum theory (without classical time) holds at thermodynamic equilibrium, and evolution is unitary.
If there is critical entanglement amongst the fermions in the underlying theory, non-unitary evolution becomes significant, spontaneous localisation results in the formation of a black hole, and in emergence of classical spacetime obeying laws of gravitation. This is a far from equilibrium state, at the opposite end from quantum theory. Elementary particle and black hole are two related fermionic states. In particular the charged spinning black hole [Kerr-Newman] has the same gyromagnetic ratio (g) as the electron satisfying the Dirac equation; both being twice the classical value. [With the understanding that interactions will make the electron g value depart from 2].
Gravitation is hence a far from equilibrium thermodynamic phenomenon. A black hole radiates so as to return to thermodynamic equilibrium, described by unitary quantum evolution.
At equilibrium the elementary particles live in 8D octonion space, evolving in Connes time. They obey a Left-Right symmetric dynamics which is an extension of the standard model, with the RH symmetry being the precursor of gravitation. This is true at all energy scales.
This dynamics could be described on the background of the 4D classical spacetime provided by those fermions which have already undergone localisation to form black holes. Such a description justifiably ignores the pre-gravity of the unlocalised fermions, and is given by our conventional QFT for the standard model, which has LH symmetry for the weak interaction. The RH symmetry - the precursor of gravity - is very hard to detect because gravity is so weak, but this RH symmetry is present, even at low energies.
It could well be, keeping in mind that space and time interchange roles inside a black hole, that the inside of the black hole is one half of a split octonion space, the other half being the exterior spacetime. Let us call the inside of the black hole the inner half space. It seems to us that a BH interior is embedded in 4D spacetime; but it is not! It is an extension of the external 4D spacetime to four additional dimensions.
Elementary particles live in the entire 8D octonion space.
Non-black-hole classical objects have a penetration depth (into the inner half space) much less than Planck length. They occupy the ordinary 4D spacetime.
The BH interior maximally occupies the inner half space, distinct from the exterior 4D spacetime - the other half.
By emitting Hawking radiation a black hole returns towards thermodynamic equilibrium and towards unitary quantum evolution in the 8D octonion space.

The octonionic theory vs. stringy multiverses


In the octonionic theory, there are no free parameters and no fine tuning. The trace dynamics Lagrangian and the algebra of the octonions are supposed to determine all the free parameters of the standard model. In fact if we have to ever to introduce some freedom / fine tuning, we would prefer to discard the theory in totality, instead of trying to save it by some quick-fix. The octonionic theory transforms string theory into a predictive theory by retaining extended objects but modifying the dynamics.
The multiverse / anthropic / landscape way of making string theory `predictive' is the exact opposite of the octonionic theory. String theory can give rise to a very large number of different kinds of universes, with different values for the fundamental parameters. Our universe has it's particular parameter values because these values allow life to arise. Theory wise there is nothing special about these values, just as there is nothing special theoretically about the distance of the earth from the sun.
I think most people will agree that the first way of saving string theory, if it works, is the preferred one. I think most people will also agree that proponents of the second method should carefully examination proposals in the first category, when such proposals are brought to their attention.
I am at a loss to understand on what scientific basis string theorists have concluded that a solution of the first type is impossible.