3 ms·
Interesting you mention "knot". What do you think of an utterly unfounded intuition that elementary particles are "knots", actually topological ones, on fields?
by hoseja 7y ago
Interesting you mention "knot". What do you think of an utterly unfounded intuition that elementary particles are "knots", actually topological ones, on fields?
- ajkjk 7y agoI 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.)