If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide
by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Order posts by:*

*Display:*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**hokapapiz byuo**: *on* 2/11/19 at 5:50am UTC, wrote Best way to use https://outlook365login.co.uk on Mac

**Joss Whedon**: *on* 2/2/18 at 8:30am UTC, wrote the fermions, represented by Grassmann spinors, are BRST ghosts...

**sherapova smith**: *on* 12/10/17 at 16:46pm UTC, wrote Whether it’s for a school project, for a work function, or for another...

**sara edward**: *on* 3/23/17 at 8:14am UTC, wrote no the ghost cast is not exist on our planet

**Alice lewis**: *on* 3/26/14 at 8:27am UTC, wrote I think a few issues of quantum Yang-Mills hypothesis is the reason there...

**Anonymous**: *on* 7/11/13 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Amrit, Greetings! Higgs boson has been found. I do have a question,...

**amrit**: *on* 12/22/11 at 9:34am UTC, wrote Open letter to scientific community Dear Sirs, Higgs boson will be never...

**Ilja Schmelzer**: *on* 9/29/11 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote I have a quite different answer to the "what are fermions" question. It is...

FQXi FORUM

March 23, 2019

Most of my research was motivated by an early frustration with what fermions are and where they come from, mathematically. A column of complex numbers, why? Ah, they're the irreducible spinor representation of the Lorentz group, or they're minimal left ideals of a Clifford algebra. But those aren't explanations of why they are, just what they are. And wait, they're not actually complex numbers, but complex Grassmann (anti-commuting) numbers? Why? Ah, they have to anti-commute to satisfy the spin-statistics theorem -- a step in the right direction, but not really satisfying.

Frustrated with this, every couple years I revise my notion of what and why fermions are. At this point my understanding may have gone pretty far afield of convention, but it's at the heart of my research so I'd like to put it out there and see what people think. Here's the basic idea:

When doing QFT with non-abelian Yang-Mills fields (describing all known forces) it is necessary to introduce ghost fields to properly restrict and account for gauge freedom. The Yang-Mills fields (principal bundle connections) we work with are Lie algebra valued 1-forms, and the ghost fields are Lie algebra valued Grassmann numbers. So, I can cook up some Yang-Mills fields with gauge freedom such that the ghosts act as spinors, algebraicly, and have the right dynamics (Dirac Lagrangian). My crazy idea, and my current understanding, is that these ghosts ARE the physical fermions.

In a nutshell: the fermions, represented by Grassmann spinors, are BRST ghosts corresponding to pure gauge degrees of freedom of a certain Yang-Mills theory.

Thoughts? Is this idea crazy enough to be true?

report post as inappropriate

Frustrated with this, every couple years I revise my notion of what and why fermions are. At this point my understanding may have gone pretty far afield of convention, but it's at the heart of my research so I'd like to put it out there and see what people think. Here's the basic idea:

When doing QFT with non-abelian Yang-Mills fields (describing all known forces) it is necessary to introduce ghost fields to properly restrict and account for gauge freedom. The Yang-Mills fields (principal bundle connections) we work with are Lie algebra valued 1-forms, and the ghost fields are Lie algebra valued Grassmann numbers. So, I can cook up some Yang-Mills fields with gauge freedom such that the ghosts act as spinors, algebraicly, and have the right dynamics (Dirac Lagrangian). My crazy idea, and my current understanding, is that these ghosts ARE the physical fermions.

In a nutshell: the fermions, represented by Grassmann spinors, are BRST ghosts corresponding to pure gauge degrees of freedom of a certain Yang-Mills theory.

Thoughts? Is this idea crazy enough to be true?

report post as inappropriate

Hello Garrett,

If you have time, can you explain this in more detail to non insiders like me? I don't understand how you can have ghosts that appear outside of the loops in Feynman diagrams.

This is what I know about ghosts:

You have some path integral that should be over physical field configurations but it is more convenient to integrate over potentials but then you get overcounting because of gauge symmetry. This can be solved by introducing ghost fields. In Feynman diagrams the ghost contributions will only appear in loops.

That's pretty much all I know about ghosts.

So, how does this "BRST ghost" differ from the Fadeev Popov ghost?

report post as inappropriate

If you have time, can you explain this in more detail to non insiders like me? I don't understand how you can have ghosts that appear outside of the loops in Feynman diagrams.

This is what I know about ghosts:

You have some path integral that should be over physical field configurations but it is more convenient to integrate over potentials but then you get overcounting because of gauge symmetry. This can be solved by introducing ghost fields. In Feynman diagrams the ghost contributions will only appear in loops.

That's pretty much all I know about ghosts.

So, how does this "BRST ghost" differ from the Fadeev Popov ghost?

report post as inappropriate

By your command,

Fadeev Popov ghosts and BRST ghosts are the same thing -- the BRST technique just adds some geometric flavor. So your understanding is fine.

When you say "introducing ghost fields" what this means is going back to the original Lagrangian and adding some fields and new terms to it. This is conventionally understood as a (necessary) mathematical trick. What I'm suggesting is that we take this mathematical trick seriously and consider these fields as being "really there." And that if we choose the right gauge fields to start with, some of these ghost fields behave exactly like our physical fermions.

Here's a one page description of the BRST technique on my wiki:

http://deferentialgeometry.org/#%5B%5BBRST%20technique%

5D%5D

Here's a more thorough introduction to the BRST technique:

Aspects of BRST Quantization

And here's a paper I wrote a year ago detailing how to use this to get fermions:

Clifford bundle formulation of BF gravity generalized to the standard model

report post as inappropriate

Fadeev Popov ghosts and BRST ghosts are the same thing -- the BRST technique just adds some geometric flavor. So your understanding is fine.

When you say "introducing ghost fields" what this means is going back to the original Lagrangian and adding some fields and new terms to it. This is conventionally understood as a (necessary) mathematical trick. What I'm suggesting is that we take this mathematical trick seriously and consider these fields as being "really there." And that if we choose the right gauge fields to start with, some of these ghost fields behave exactly like our physical fermions.

Here's a one page description of the BRST technique on my wiki:

http://deferentialgeometry.org/#%5B%5BBRST%20technique%

5D%5D

Here's a more thorough introduction to the BRST technique:

Aspects of BRST Quantization

And here's a paper I wrote a year ago detailing how to use this to get fermions:

Clifford bundle formulation of BF gravity generalized to the standard model

report post as inappropriate

I have a very different picture for fermions. I believe that

the space is a quantum liquid of long strings or string-nets (whose sizes are of order of universe). Under this assumption, fermion are ends of open strings and gauge bosons are the quanta of the collective waves in the string liquid. In other words Fermi statistics and gauge interaction are unified under this string-net picture. The string-net theory for fermions has a prediction that all composite fermions must carry gauge charge. The string-net theory for fermions

also explains why all fermions must carry half-odd-integer spins. For details see http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/pub/uni.pdf

report post as inappropriate

the space is a quantum liquid of long strings or string-nets (whose sizes are of order of universe). Under this assumption, fermion are ends of open strings and gauge bosons are the quanta of the collective waves in the string liquid. In other words Fermi statistics and gauge interaction are unified under this string-net picture. The string-net theory for fermions has a prediction that all composite fermions must carry gauge charge. The string-net theory for fermions

also explains why all fermions must carry half-odd-integer spins. For details see http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/pub/uni.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Garrett,

Thank you very much for the trouble you took to understand and revise this problem. I like to inform you that the ghosts are not physical fermions due to the wrong relationship between spin and statistics for them. Actually, spin-statistics relationship corresponds to micro-causality which is also very important to obtain unitarity of free quantum field theories as well as nonfree QFTs. Some problems of quantum Yang-Mills theory is why there exsists nonequvalence of choosing gauge condition (there is a bad gauge choice in which gauge condition intersects some orbits (classes of equvalent Yang-Mills fields) more than one (Gribov problem)). Also, for the same theory in a particular gauge condition there are no ghosts at all. Why is that? Also, the IR sector of this theory is not well known, maybe pure quantum Yang-Mills theory possesses the mass gap (gluons have masses producing glueballs i.e. confinement of gluons). This corresponds to the Clay Institute Millenium Prize Problem.

Though, it seems that ghosts are very important for renormalization and unitarity of the quantum Yang-Mills theory as well as the Standard model, but they are not represented on-shell (in physical processes, as in scattering) (for these statements see the literature on no-ghost theorem and optical theorem).

Best regards,

aca

P.S. In the Standard model, as in the quantum Yang-Mills type theory, the choice of gauge condition is very important to prove its unitarity and renormalization and there is no unique choice of gauge condition in which you can prove both (see `t Hooft and Veltman`s papers). Why is that so?

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for the trouble you took to understand and revise this problem. I like to inform you that the ghosts are not physical fermions due to the wrong relationship between spin and statistics for them. Actually, spin-statistics relationship corresponds to micro-causality which is also very important to obtain unitarity of free quantum field theories as well as nonfree QFTs. Some problems of quantum Yang-Mills theory is why there exsists nonequvalence of choosing gauge condition (there is a bad gauge choice in which gauge condition intersects some orbits (classes of equvalent Yang-Mills fields) more than one (Gribov problem)). Also, for the same theory in a particular gauge condition there are no ghosts at all. Why is that? Also, the IR sector of this theory is not well known, maybe pure quantum Yang-Mills theory possesses the mass gap (gluons have masses producing glueballs i.e. confinement of gluons). This corresponds to the Clay Institute Millenium Prize Problem.

Though, it seems that ghosts are very important for renormalization and unitarity of the quantum Yang-Mills theory as well as the Standard model, but they are not represented on-shell (in physical processes, as in scattering) (for these statements see the literature on no-ghost theorem and optical theorem).

Best regards,

aca

P.S. In the Standard model, as in the quantum Yang-Mills type theory, the choice of gauge condition is very important to prove its unitarity and renormalization and there is no unique choice of gauge condition in which you can prove both (see `t Hooft and Veltman`s papers). Why is that so?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Garrett,

I remember we were talking about this by email years ago, when I was still a student -- and before you became kind of a web celibrity :-).

Concerning the topic of this thread here (to which I am arriving overly late, I know) allow me to say that I feel unsure about your proposed identification of physical fermions with BRST ghosts. To some extent the disagreement is just...

view entire post

I remember we were talking about this by email years ago, when I was still a student -- and before you became kind of a web celibrity :-).

Concerning the topic of this thread here (to which I am arriving overly late, I know) allow me to say that I feel unsure about your proposed identification of physical fermions with BRST ghosts. To some extent the disagreement is just...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I believe that the brain creates specific energys when using emotions that if strong enough may manifest itself in a place, and live off the energys around it. It would probably mimic the mind and body it came from. At least thats what i believe.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Ghost! is the scared feeling when we are alone or empty minded . Yeh it is the strong eneygy that disturbs the mind & body too.

John

www.donjoaoresortgoa.com

report post as inappropriate

John

www.donjoaoresortgoa.com

report post as inappropriate

I have a quite different answer to the "what are fermions" question. It is part of my "cell lattice model" which allows to explain the particle content of the standard model, which can be found here. It associates a single scalar field on a spatial lattice with a doublet of staggered Dirac fermions, which are identified with electroweak pairs.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Open letter to scientific community

Dear Sirs,

Higgs boson will be never discovered as it not exists.

Physicists as the CERN know that, what they are telling us this days in media is just to get money for searching for a black cat in a black room that is not there.

Our research shows mass has origin in energy density of quantum vacuum. Mass is an energy form of quantum vacuum in symmetry with diminished energy density of quantum vacuum. Presence of mass diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum respectively to the energy of a given mass. A given particle with a mass diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum, mass-less particle does not diminish energy of quantum vacuum. In order to explain mass of elementary particles this view does not require existence of the hypothetical boson of Higgs.

Yours Sincerely, Amrit Sorli, Space Life Institute

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sirs,

Higgs boson will be never discovered as it not exists.

Physicists as the CERN know that, what they are telling us this days in media is just to get money for searching for a black cat in a black room that is not there.

Our research shows mass has origin in energy density of quantum vacuum. Mass is an energy form of quantum vacuum in symmetry with diminished energy density of quantum vacuum. Presence of mass diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum respectively to the energy of a given mass. A given particle with a mass diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum, mass-less particle does not diminish energy of quantum vacuum. In order to explain mass of elementary particles this view does not require existence of the hypothetical boson of Higgs.

Yours Sincerely, Amrit Sorli, Space Life Institute

report post as inappropriate

Dear Amrit,

Greetings!

Higgs boson has been found. I do have a question, though: Can the Higgs boson actually assign a specific value of a rest mass, say, that of an electron? Or it merely explains why non-photon particles have rest masses?

Because by my model of a combined spacetime 4-manifold of {(t + ti, x + yi, y + zi, z + xi)}, the column of (0, i) in one of the three Pauli matrices becomes (0, 0, 1) and a free electron-wave spins firstly from (x, y, z) = (-1, 0, 0) = W with momentum direction (0, 1, 0), then secondly to (0, 1, 0) = N with momentum direction (1, 0, 0), and thirdly to (1, 0, 0) = E with momentum direction (0, i) = (0, 0, 1); i.e., the spin changes to a perpendicular plane so that the energy wave spins fourthly from E to (0, 0, 1) = T, and finally from T back to E. Since the angular momentum of the spin around the first semi-circle, W to N to E, is not the same as that around the second semi-circle, E to T to W, the electron-wave must stop at the intersection point E, thus the origin of a rest mass.

By varying the angle between the two semi-circles from the above 90, to 60, to 30, and to 0 degrees, respectively corresponding to (0, ½ + sqrt3/2 i), (0, sqrt3/2 + i/2), and (0, 1), we model the spinning wave motions of the three generations of the up quark, the down quark, and neutrino. As such, they all must have rest masses.

Best,

Gregory L. Light

report post as inappropriate

Greetings!

Higgs boson has been found. I do have a question, though: Can the Higgs boson actually assign a specific value of a rest mass, say, that of an electron? Or it merely explains why non-photon particles have rest masses?

Because by my model of a combined spacetime 4-manifold of {(t + ti, x + yi, y + zi, z + xi)}, the column of (0, i) in one of the three Pauli matrices becomes (0, 0, 1) and a free electron-wave spins firstly from (x, y, z) = (-1, 0, 0) = W with momentum direction (0, 1, 0), then secondly to (0, 1, 0) = N with momentum direction (1, 0, 0), and thirdly to (1, 0, 0) = E with momentum direction (0, i) = (0, 0, 1); i.e., the spin changes to a perpendicular plane so that the energy wave spins fourthly from E to (0, 0, 1) = T, and finally from T back to E. Since the angular momentum of the spin around the first semi-circle, W to N to E, is not the same as that around the second semi-circle, E to T to W, the electron-wave must stop at the intersection point E, thus the origin of a rest mass.

By varying the angle between the two semi-circles from the above 90, to 60, to 30, and to 0 degrees, respectively corresponding to (0, ½ + sqrt3/2 i), (0, sqrt3/2 + i/2), and (0, 1), we model the spinning wave motions of the three generations of the up quark, the down quark, and neutrino. As such, they all must have rest masses.

Best,

Gregory L. Light

report post as inappropriate

I think a few issues of quantum Yang-Mills hypothesis is the reason there exsists nonequvalence of picking gage condition (there is an awful gage decision in which gage condition crosses a few circles (classes of equvalent Yang-Mills fields) more than one (Gribov issue)). Additionally, for the same hypothesis in a specific gage condition there are no apparitions whatsoever. Why? Likewise, the IR part of this hypothesis is not well known.

http://www.ipracticemath.com

report post as inappropriate

http://www.ipracticemath.com

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.