Theories of Everything

[Jess Tauber]

Why are people trying to unify gravity with the electroweak and strong forces together directly? Just on the face of it seems to me that  the unification of electromagnetism with the weak force under the electroweak interaction would suggest that we try first to unify gravity with the strong force and the Higgs mechanism, given that all of these deal with mass interactions more primarily.

I bring all this up because of my previous post about angles in the tetrahedral model of the LST, and the way fermionic charges can be modeled with the cube-in-plane. I also mentioned the Koide formula, which utilizes the same underlying sets of trigonometric (that is, sine and cosine) values to define relative masses of these same fermions. Half of these are used for the cube-in-plane charge model, and the other half the Koide masses. 

For every 30 degree increment, for each model, we switch between sines and cosines- so for one angle if the sine helps define the charge, the cosine helps define the mass, and then the angle 30 degrees ahead (or behind) has the sine defining the mass, and the cosine defining the charge. Between the two interpenetrating sets the entire system is used to define both charge and mass.

Anyway, just some errant thoughts. Have a good night everyone.

Jess Tauber

tetrahed...@gmail.com

[Rene]

On 28 Jul 2025, at 11:10, Jess Tauber <tetrahed...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why are people trying to unify gravity with the electroweak and strong forces together directly? Just on the face of it seems to me that  the unification of electromagnetism with the weak force under the electroweak interaction would suggest that we try first to unify gravity with the strong force and the Higgs mechanism, given that all of these deal with mass interactions more primarily.

Hi Jess

I gather physicists are trying to unify gravity with the electroweak and strong forces together because they believe all the fundamental forces may come from a single, deeper theory. Since the electroweak and strong forces are already partway unified, it kind of makes sense to look for one framework i.e. a "Theory of Everything" that includes gravity too. 

As well:

• The strong force isn't considered mass-centric; it's about colour charge and confinement.
• Gravity couples to energy-momentum, not just rest mass, and thus affects all fields.
• The Higgs mechanism imparts mass but is part of electroweak theory.

The goal is to explain all forces with one set of principles, especially since they may all merge at extremely high energies, like those in the early universe.

A full unification could reveal the deepest laws of nature.

René

[Jess Tauber]

I'm merely suggesting that instead of trying to unify these things in a single, linear hierarchy, perhaps it is a SPLIT hierarchy, where interactions being unified form pairwise, or 'two by two' as in Noachian mythology. The elaboration of basic color terminology in human languages (that is terms not obviously derived from other lexical items, such as green from grass, or red from blood) operates in such a split fashion, with 'warm' colors (reds, yellows) along one path and 'cool' ones (blues, greens) along the other. This was first discovered in the late 1960s by Brent Berlin (who I knew at UC Berkeley) and Paul Kay who both went on to become prominent linguists. Connotational implicational hierarchies often show splits of this sort. See (briefly) the Wiki articles on Linguistic Relativity and Color Naming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate) as well as on Animacy in languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animacy). There are many other similarly constructed hierarchies in human languages, including the materials I study- imitative words. See Wiki article on Implicational Hierarchies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicational_hierarchy)'.

Jess Tauber

tetrahed...@gmail.com