Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
   • CommentTimeJan 5th 2024
   • (edited Jan 5th 2024)
   • PermaLink
   Author: John Baez
   Format: MarkdownItexDoes this article make sense? * Juven Wang, [Family Puzzle, Framing Topology, c_ =24 and 3(E8)1 Conformal Field Theories: 48/16 = 45/15 = 24/8 =3](https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14928). It has a lot of nice math, but I have trouble grasping the logic of the arguments. If they make sense, it should be possible to explain them better.

   Does this article make sense?

   • Juven Wang, Family Puzzle, Framing Topology, c_ =24 and 3(E8)1 Conformal Field Theories: 48/16 = 45/15 = 24/8 =3.

   It has a lot of nice math, but I have trouble grasping the logic of the arguments. If they make sense, it should be possible to explain them better.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 5th 2024
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't follow the argument, but I am getting the sense that the basic idea is to somehow associate a 2d CFT with the standard model and then to argue that seemingly desirable conditions on the central charge of that CFT translate to the total number of fermions of the standard model being a multiple of 48. The wording suggests that the 2d CFT in question is meant to be a truncated KK-reduction of the standard model. Here I am not sure which one and why the result would be conformal. The additional assumption of a "mass domain wall" in 5d seems to be used to project out half of the fermions for the counting to work as desired; but I am not sure which 5d theory with domain walls this would be about, or how it would still relate to the standard model.

   I don’t follow the argument, but I am getting the sense that the basic idea is to somehow associate a 2d CFT with the standard model and then to argue that seemingly desirable conditions on the central charge of that CFT translate to the total number of fermions of the standard model being a multiple of 48.

   The wording suggests that the 2d CFT in question is meant to be a truncated KK-reduction of the standard model. Here I am not sure which one and why the result would be conformal.

   The additional assumption of a “mass domain wall” in 5d seems to be used to project out half of the fermions for the counting to work as desired; but I am not sure which 5d theory with domain walls this would be about, or how it would still relate to the standard model.