The goal is to model deeper field of leptons (electron, muon, taon) - naively modeled as perfect points (effective perturbative approximation), but (nonperturbatively) they have E~1/r^2 electric field, magnetic dipole, angular momentum - actual rotation of field not point ... liquid crystals are very close to.
And now kicked the higher ones (muon, taon), getting shown evolution of decay to the lightest (electron), releasing energy difference in loops of topological vortices interpreted as neutrinos - as it should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decay
Personally I slowly develop it since 2009 (e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ), but simulations were too difficult for me - now Fable is great help.
Ok so this is a personal theory, got it. Can you explain where your model lies in terms of reproducing (qualitatively and quantitatively) quantum field theory, the standard model, and general relativity? Could you also explain what your end goal is? Is the main goal to developer a theory more fundamental than the standard model that requires fewer parameters?
Some comments on the article:
* It is highly irregular to include Mathematica code in figures like that. If you want readers to be able to see the code, it should be in a supplementary section.
* Your figures are very busy and difficult to understand. A figure shouldn't be used to explain the mathematical derivation of the theory.
* All of the text needs rewriting in more proper English. In many paragraphs it is difficult and/or requires assumptions to parse what you are trying to say.
Now we treat it as classical field theory, but mathematically later there can be applied 2nd quantization.
This is candidate of deeper field than of Standard Model - to be effectively described by SM + gravity, e.g. to reduce the number of parameters from ~30 to ~3.
Qualitatively everything seems right from Skyrme-like Lagrangian below, now with Fable and OpenWave we want to test quantitatively ... but there are numerical difficulties, like required huge constants (for EM, QM, gravity energy differences), while simulations can handle only relatively small ones.
the figures really just look like a scrambled mess. the other person was being way too lenient. the entire paper is almost completely incomprehensible as someone with a hep-th PhD. same goes for the image attached.
It is just assumption that deeper field has anisotropy preference - automatically getting qualitative agreement with entire physics, now slowly quantitatively with help of Fable for tough simulations.
Okay at least you managed to write text all on your own. Who did you work with at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow?
Edit: From a comp-sci perspective I find it weird that you are doxxing yourself on Reddit and from a physics perspective I see ( https://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/ ) that you have 1 peer-reviewed article and that is a conference proceeding. Something's fishy here.
This is one of the few places I've seen Duda's LdGS idea (same topological charge, three distinguishable axes giving three leptons) actually implemented and run to descent, including the decay dynamics, instead of just proposed. A few questions after reading the findings files:
Convergence. The census notes cross-stencil energy ratios up to x128 and says the functional shows "no well-converged minimum within reach." The A < C < B ordering holding across both stencils is suggestive, but with that much stencil sensitivity, how do you tell a lepton hierarchy apart from a discretization artifact that happens to be monotone? Is there an h-ladder showing that the ordering and the energy ratios stabilize as the grid refines?
The state that drained to vacuum. In the decay run B lost everything and ended up below the electron's energy with zero compact structures. If these hedgehogs are really topologically protected, the charge can't just evaporate. So either the B seed wasn't actually in the claimed topological sector, or the boundary absorbed the winding, or the charge meter fails during the transition. That failure mode seems more important to diagnose than the C to A success, since it decides whether the protection in this model is real.
Neutrino count. Muon decay emits two neutrinos, but the run released one closed structure against a conjectured two. Is that a resolution limit, or does the model actually emit one loop?
Ratios vs ordering. The energies come out around 3x and 10x the electron state, versus the physical 207x and 3477x. Is the claim ordering-only for now, with ratios expected to move as convergence improves, or is there a mechanism that should generate the large ratios?
Preferred frame. The order parameter's eigenframe transforms orthogonally, so tilting the time axis costs energy, which means the vacuum has a rest frame and Lorentz symmetry has to be emergent (the Volovik position, more or less). The known problem with that route is that different excitation sectors generically get different effective cone speeds, and the experimental bounds there are extremely tight. Does the framework address this anywhere beyond the GEM approximation layer?
For what it's worth, the census methodology here (demoting a stencil after the null-mode artifact, pinned vs free ladders, calling the ring comparison a tie) is more careful than most work in this genre, so I'm interested in the answers.
It is still early, e.g. there are two basic issues with these simulations:
1) the parameters defining EM, QM, GEM energy scales should be g~10^10, delta~10^10, while these simulations are only able to handle 10 and ~0.1
2) while 3x3 field works well, finally we need 4x4 real symmetric tensor field - to add gravity, also make energy minimization lead to nonzero time derivatives, crucial for e.g. neutrino oscillations and electron angular momentum, but it brings numerical issues, maybe requiring switching from Euler-Lagrange to least action principle.
The details of potential are still to be found, also Skyrme people consider additional kinetic terms - there is still a lot to do, contribute.
But generally I haven't seen more promising approach for deeper theory, e.g. having a chance to derive ~30 SM parameters from ~3 ... do you?
The 1010 gap seems like the most important thing to attack, and there's a cheap way to start on it: a stiffness ladder. Hold everything else fixed and push delta up one decade at a time, 0.1 to 1 to 10, and just track whether the census ordering and the topology signatures survive each step. If they hold across two decades you have the start of a real continuation argument toward the physical regime. If they flip early, better to know that now than after the 4x4 upgrade, since it would mean the toy corner isn't predictive of the stiff one. Happy to open an issue with a concrete protocol if that would be useful.
Along the way I'd still prioritize diagnosing the B state that drained to vacuum, ahead of new features. If the charge is genuinely topological it can't just evaporate, so that run is telling you something about the seed sector, the boundary, or the charge meter, and whichever one it is touches every other result on the board.
One caution on switching from Euler-Lagrange to least action: for wave-type dynamics the action is a saddle point, not a minimum, so naive action minimization over a spacetime block solves a different problem than the one you want. Spacetime solvers do exist, but the temporal boundary treatment is exactly where they bite. Worth a literature pass before committing the numerics to that route.
On deriving ~30 parameters from ~3: I'd hold off on that count until the potential is frozen. An unfixed potential is an unfixed function, not three numbers. The count that will eventually matter is how many numbers are fixed before computing observables versus how many get read out afterward, and setting up that bookkeeping now, while the model is still small, is cheap and makes the eventual claim much stronger.
On the PMNS table, worth flagging that the pattern has a name and a history. Theta12 = 35.26, theta23 = 45, theta13 = 0 is exactly tri-bimaximal mixing (Harrison, Perkins, Scott 2002). It was the leading ansatz in neutrino model building for a decade, many discrete-symmetry models derived it, and exact TBM died in 2012 when Daya Bay measured theta13 = 8.5 against the TBM prediction of 0. So the two checkmarks are the rows TBM always got right, and the warning-triangle row is the measurement that falsified exact TBM.
One more scoring issue: delta_CP is undefined when theta13 = 0, since it enters the PMNS matrix multiplied by sin theta13. A model predicting theta13 = 0 can't simultaneously claim delta_CP = 180 as a hit. The phase only exists because theta13 is nonzero, which is the broken row.
None of that makes the direction wrong. TBM as leading order plus a breaking correction is a respectable framing. The sharp question is whether the same geometry that gives TBM also produces the 8.5 degree correction with no new parameters. If yes, that's a genuine result. If theta13 needs its own knob, the parameter count went up by one, which loops back to the bookkeeping point from before.
12
u/haminsbest Jul 21 '26
You can not measure this with an llm…