[Physics] Compatibility with and/or the properties of the Standard Model (SM)

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Agreed.


On 2020-04-27 14:02, Tom Hollings wrote:
> Mike, I like this : - "If you do not start with what actually exists
> in nature, you
> cannot expect any mathematical model to generate the right results.
> Mathematics alone, built on logic, without a physical foundation to
> build on is broken..."
> Very true. My saying is : - The real world can be represented by
> maths, but maths does not always represent the real world.
> 
> Tom Hollings
> 
> 
>> On 27 April 2020 at 12:12 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Arend,
>> 
>> You obviously have not read my paper. It shows that you only need one
>> particle/anti-particle, one composite system (loops) and two forces to
>> described everything we observe. This is the simplest possible system
>> that could ever be envisged. Its 'only' complexity lies in the need to
>> mathematically model the interactions between the
>> particles/anti-particles in one loop with those in another loop. The 
>> SM
>> is too simplistic because it does not consider fermions to be 
>> composite
>> particles. If you do not start with what actually exists in nature, 
>> you
>> cannot expect any mathematical model to generate the right results.
>> Mathematics alone, built on logic, without a physical foundation to
>> build on is broken eg 'This sentence is untrue.'.
>> Cheers
>> Mike