In reference to arxiv:1212.4893v3 and arxiv:1206.5078v2 papers of Ma and Wang, they have proposed new theories in particle physics, the weakton model where quarks and leptons are formed using these weaktons; modified Einstein's field equations taking care of Dark matter and Energy.

Are these really major breakthroughs as they apparently seem to be, with proper experimental evidences of their accuracy ? Or are they yet to be verified ? What does the Physics community think of these ? I am curious.

  • $\begingroup$ I got to page 3 of the GR paper, and at that point I lost count of the number of crackpot indicators I saw (over a dozen). "EFEs failed to explain the dark matter and dark energy" (of course they fail there - they are equations of motion, and they say nothing about what exists in the universe); no solution for CMB in spherical symmetry (so hundreds of cosmologists all missed this fact for the last century?); looking to the EFEs to explain inhomogeneity; the list goes on. $\endgroup$ – user10851 Aug 27 '14 at 11:32
  • $\begingroup$ The modified gravitation is just another gravitational theory with a scalar field. There are so much of these, and they are used both for dark energy and dark matter explanations (and Ma and Wang are certainly not the first ones to propose such a thing). For a taste of some of the other theories and why observational cosmologists really cannot really care about every new variation see this question and answer. $\endgroup$ – Void Sep 2 '14 at 12:00

I am an experimental physicists, and the model in the first paper has not reached the level of experimental predictions, for LHC results. In fact except for the link you give the search at the CERN document server gives nothing, and the word "weakton" does not yield discussions or appraisals. So the experimental physics community is overlooking this, even though some people at the LHC look at composite models., look at paragraph 4.1.

From what I see of the submission history it has not been peer reviewed to appear in a standard journal although it is a year since it is in the archive.

Lets see if a theoretical physicist has a response to this question for the particle paper.

Edit after comment

Now for the new gravitational theory paper, I found an article popularizing it,

"Most importantly, this new energy and the new field equations offer a unified theory for both dark energy and dark matter, which until now have been considered as two totally different beasts sharing only 'dark' in name," he said. "Both dark matter and dark energy can now be represented by the sum of the new scalar potential energy density and the coupling energy between the energy-momentum tensor and the scalar potential field."

The negative part of this sum represents the dark matter, which produces attraction, and the positive part represents the dark energy, which drives the acceleration of expanding galaxies, he said.

"In a nutshell, we believe that new gravity theory will change our view on energy, gravitational interactions, and the structure and formation of our universe," Wang(an author) said.

Kevin Zumbrun, chair of the Department of Mathematics at IU Bloomington, said the new unified theory looked sound in principle.

"It is speculative at the cosmological level, since one must match with experiment, but the math is solid," he said. "It's a new and elegant angle on things, and if this does match experiment, it is a huge discovery. Quite exciting!"

Wang (an author) said the new field equations also lead to a modified Newtonian gravitational force formula, which shows that dark matter plays a more important role in a galactic scale at about 1,000 to 100,000 light years, but is less important in the larger scale, where dark energy will be significant (more than 10 million light years).

"This unified theory is consistent with general characterizations of dark energy and dark matter, and further tests of the theory up to measured precisions of cosmic observations are certainly crucial for an eventual validation of the theory," Wang added.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. But what about the one on dark matter and energy ? $\endgroup$ – smiley06 May 26 '14 at 5:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am in no position to evaluate a new gravitational theory thus my answer is only on the particle paper. They have published this, the journal says articles are peer reviewed. I will have to wait and see what type of impact the paper has. $\endgroup$ – anna v May 26 '14 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ Here is a description of their gravitational paper newsinfo.iu.edu/news-archive/23053.html $\endgroup$ – anna v May 26 '14 at 6:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ anna v - I would be very pleasantly surprised if the theoreticians (I'm one) give it a thumbs up without hearing from the experimentalists, so what you have hit upon is a very weird situation. There has been so much of an outrage against the promotion of string theory as a scientific discipline, in the absence of experimental backing, that even the theory guys have adopted a cautious approach - ``looks fine, but these things are ultimately settled by experimentation''. So, weird as it may sound, irrespective of how good an idea may be, `social acceptance' does start from you guys. :) $\endgroup$ – 299792458 May 28 '14 at 7:16
  • $\begingroup$ @New_new_newbie the experiments are used to validate theoretical models and ultimately validate theories. One can have beautiful theoretical constructs, they are called mathematics. If they do not describe measurable quantities they just remain in the mathematical archives. Sometimes, as with Riemannian geometry, a brilliant choice by a theoretician leads to models that can be validated. So it is not social acceptance, but a slow build up of a theory of everything in nature, by using mathematical models. In the second paper, first theorists have to judge, if it does all it claims $\endgroup$ – anna v May 28 '14 at 7:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.