🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5NOV199211284285@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <23651@galaxy.ucr.edu>, baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez) writes...
>>In article <3NOV199212323281@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>>It is entirely within the realm of possibility that, for example, some
>>>future TOE, which unifies EW, Strong, and Gravitational forces will suggest
>>>a reason for the value of the speed of light.  As a matter of fact, many 
>>>people suspect that an ultimate theory would in fact explain all the 
>>>numbers which appear only as parameters in the Standard Model, such as the
>>>value of the electronic charge, the various mixing angles, masses, CP-violating
>>>phase, etc.  
>> 
>>Hmm.  I don't buy this, at least not without further explanation.
>
>Fair enough.  Here are a couple of examples from current physics.  In the SM,
>the EW mixing angle (a.k.a. the Weinberg angle) is a fundamental parameter.
>It must be put in by hand.  But if you derive the SM lagrangian from a 
>GUT lagrangian, like SU(5), you find that you *can* derive a value for 
>the mixing angle...

As the rest of my post indicated, that wasn't the part that I don't
buy!!  I can imagine a theory that predicts mixing angles, but not a
theory that predicts the speed of light (in any exciting sense - see my
previous post).