I can reverse engineer phenomena in either a condensed
matter background or in an LHC background, including gravitational corrections. I can ‘reverse engineer’
both CM and GR phenomena; the program though is quite
a bit of work – and I DO NOT GET PAID. I think about
1000 loops should be possible, by the standard loop
formalism according to your textbooks (on my LAPTOP).

The work is about 3000 lines in Matlab and finished in
two months. All loop diagrams to any order are automated, based on tree diagrams and finished loop integrals.

Gordon

Gordon

If the masses are instantonic generated, with the result being an approximate m_f=\Lambda(\Lambda/m_pl)^{n/16} as seems, then the contribution of the Higgs (or the severalscalars) should be suppressed by a factor of 5-100 in general.

The question is that if this is true, that is, if the perturbative masses
generate only 1/20 of an effect, doesnt that explain via the Yukawa
couplings that the predictions for dark matter are now in agreement with experiment. I suppose electroweak baryogenesis should be re-examined.
No calculations are sent here, unfortunately, but I think there is weight to it.

Seemingly no one is responding.

Gordon

Sean:

What did I offend you that deserved being banned
from your new blog? Frankly speaking censorship on
the internet is physically impossible as you see.
I can see all the files and have figured out a
security vulnerability that could be easily used to
take over control. But I am NOT going to use it.

I just want to participate as a regular user in
the discussions in the spirit of scientific freedom,
with NO fear of censorship and prosecution.

Please remove any censored IP from your .htaccess
file. It means nothing! I knows the direct email address
that can be used to bypass it and post messages directly.
Do you want me to publicly reveal that email address? No?

I do not mind if my comments are occasionally removed.
But an outright ban is not acceptable, not is it even possible, as you see.

Quantoken

We would need an errata here also. They do; weakly, but they do .

I suppose I should pose a question, as this is a forum. Why continue to quote 60′s literature in order to explain the masses when supersymmetry is around these days. And on top of that, why quote complicated formulae such as m_1 \sim m_2^2 which seem to have a less simple explanation, such as instanton effects to explain fermion masses, especially when there is a quantum condition.

Gordon

P.S. The web-browser actually cut me off, so I take back what I said, although it is very nice.

Why go for quoting the Gell-Man-Okubo-Levy formulae and their descendents when a simpler explanation is possible. The (gauge) instantonic formula for the masses is of course corrected by the perturbative contributions, which with some (hopefully)

Gordon

P.S. The web browser for the ‘blog’ is very well done.

Silly me.

I must be tired. As I work all the time, and I am sortof tired now. Woke up at 5:00 etc…

The formula is really \Lambda^2 (\Lambda/m_{pl})^{n/16}. The sixteen is supposed to be relevant to the conformal group. Any way, you can look up some of these details in one of my papers, or the other ones by different authors.

Gordon

Long time. I figured that the neutrinos fit the match of the fermions, that is \Lambda^n(\Lambda^n/m^{pl})^4.
I havent had a chance to talk about this with other physicists though. \Lambda, by the way fits the first
supersymmetry breaking scale of around 2 TeV.

Best,
Gordon Chalmers