zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. hoseja+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-04-27 09:02:18
Interesting you mention "knot". What do you think of an utterly unfounded intuition that elementary particles are "knots", actually topological ones, on fields?
replies(1): >>ajkjk+jT
2. ajkjk+jT[view] [source] 2020-04-27 16:56:36
>>hoseja+(OP)
I think that's widely understood to be 'sort of true'. Not necessarily a literal knot, but a geometric property - like what I mentioned, where integrating around sees a net divergence/curl/etc in any reference frame. That's the reason that QM doesn't predict exact locations for particles: the discontinuity doesn't have a location, it just exists in a region.

(I don't exactly understand if this 'is' a knot, in a sense. I guess it is.)

[go to top]