Login

u/arivero

Launching Claude on old personal slop
▲ 5 r/LLMPhysics

Launching Claude on old personal slop

How are you guys faring on the rehearsal of old papers with claude? I feed this one (2006, pre Higgs measurement, so it is a prediction) to the LLM and asked to do a blog post in the way of Baez and I am not unhappy https://a.rivero.nom.es/claude-on-hans/

Summary of the links as required: the arxiv paper is a reinterpretation of a idea on physicsforums that produces the Weinberg angle as a composite model of the gauge bosons with peculiar spin; the paper saves the math and notices two extra results, one of them near the electroweak vacuum, other near the -still unknown at that time- Higgs, so that the idea happened to produce the four relevant parameters of the electroweak breaking. The second link is to a blog entry produced by asking claude first to think on some related concepts on coupling constants and renormalisation schemes and then finally read the paper.

u/arivero — 1 day ago
▲ 0 r/HypotheticalPhysics

What if most fine structure constant recipes have the same shape?

I can write at tree level the fine structure constant as a combination of the mases of Z and W, plus the Fermi constant to keep the thing adimensional.

https://preview.redd.it/rpilu8a1wx1h1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=7482e7ab6af561f4e9948fdbfbcbbc89589591b2

No that it is a big thing, nowadays one gets 132.1... still closer to 137 than other approaches. Next I add a correction 1/(1-Delta r)

and so I fine tune, either with a straight Delta r or with a recursive expansion where the correction depends itself of alpha.

So I was wondering, what if the successful guesses of the fine structure constant decompose in actually

  1. a guess for the mass relationships of W, Z and Fermi (or sqrt(2) top, perhaps), and
  2. a guess for the expansion of Delta r

To put an example, I could use

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606171

to have three values of GF, Z and W using radical factors, and then predict that alpha is

α⁻¹(0) = 2π(1 + √3)(√3 − 1)

/ (((√57 − 3)/8)(√3 − 1 − (√57 − 3)/8))

and so I get 135.2885024003​, and then I could add some fudge (1 - Delta r) to get the actual value.

reddit.com
u/arivero — 1 day ago
▲ 10 r/nuclearweapons+1 crossposts

If we measure the bosons of the standard model, Higgs W and Z, in units of atomic mass, it can be noticed that they are very near of the masses of the doubly magic nuclei that create the extra stability needed for fission, Particularly the high mass peak of the yield of fission, both for U235 and for the cummulate of all fissionable nuclei, happens to be nuclei of the same mass that the Higgs boson.

Usually nuclear mass is modeled by fitting against the whole dataset of masses some model with free parameters from liquid drop plus shell effects plus finer terms. The hypothesis is that some of the fine terms are really from the standard model, in the same way that Shifman–Vainshtein–Zakharov make the Higgs see the whole QCD mass of a proton instead of the elementary quarks. The same mechanism that makes the nucleon's mass dominantly anomalous-gluonic should be applied to the nucleus's mass, and the residual collective structure of that decomposition is what the fission yield is detecting.

u/arivero — 13 days ago