SUMMARY

SUMMARY http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203 ---------------------------- present discussion at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4339&st=375&#entry127749 ------------------------------- [b]WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON’T FIND THE MEXICAN HAT? [/b] (Which was arrived by applying uncertainty around zero/a point.) You make a PLAN “B”. There are more amateurs then professionals. You therefore, organize a party and ask everybody to come with anything that they can find that does not break the Planck scale. If there is anything that looks promising then it can be pursued further. The professionals have the abilities and tools to do more than the amateurs. Most professionals will not be interested or inclined to look for a PLAN “B”. Some will be interested. See: [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008[/url] The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics By; Gerard ’t Hooft Doing this endeavor might help the professionals and it will certainly help the amateurs. So… tell your friends about the party at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4339&st=375&#entry127749 For 31 Oct. 2006. They might want to come for a visit. See you at the party. [IMG]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-026.gif[/IMG] -------------------------- Do you remember these drawings? Can you understand why you cannot have a Planck Sphere less than 2(3(2 pi ))? [b]1. You would be breaking the speed limit. 2. You would be invalidating relativity. [/b] The light cone must bottom out at a 3D spacetime unit. If you reduce the spacetime unit to less than the Planck scale then you will be going faster than the speed of light….that is science fiction. When you use scaling then that spacetime unit could be 10^-18. [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/newlightcone.gif[/img] [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/expandinguniverse.gif [/img] [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/4pi.gif[/IMG] Don’t forget….. that is only the 2D. You must bring it to a 3d size. [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/instanton.gif[/IMG] Lets see ….. would it also mean that the minimum size would also scale to 2 X of what we had…. 2(3(2 pi ))? (Check my math/logic) Therefore, if they don’t find the “Mexican hat” we must change out understanding/interpretation of the universe. See you at the party. [IMG]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-026.gif[/IMG] jal

moving forwards

[quote] Systems theory is the basis for modeling complex systems, which are broken down into three basic components: [b]units, processes, and structures.[/b] Once these three components [b]can be identified[/b], a mathematical or game-theory derived model can be produced. This model is then run through a Simulation.[/quote] What have “amateurs” been able to do? Here is the summary of the “SPOT”? [b]units[/b] We have identified a basic unit to work with …. A Planck size wave. The holographic principle implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information. [b]structures[/b] 1. The structures of Hex. and Cubic arrangements, 2D packing and 3D packing has been identified as the basic structure. 2. As a result, we have 6 “waves” to work with in 2D and 12 “waves” to work with in 3D. 3. The Planck Scale Rules are applicable and cannot be violated. As a result it reveals more secrets of the structure. 4. There is a “Planck Volume” which is a void, and that void cannot be occupied for more than a Planck time. 5. The Planck distance imposes a minimum distance on a “Planck Volume” which is greater than a Plank Length. 6. The diameter of a 2D Planck Sphere is greater than one Planck Length. 7. The 3D Planck Sphere is a composite of 12 Planck waves in a dynamic configuration with a diameter equal to 2(3(2 pi )). 8. A solitary wave cannot “live”. Therefore, a “spot”, is a mathematical construct when considered by itself or in isolation. It cannot “live”. 9. The use of “a point” as the origin for gravity is not allowed because nothing is smaller than a Planck Length or a 2D Planck Sphere. 10. We cannot renormalize gravity from a 3D structure. That means that GRAVITY IS FROM A 2D STRUCTURE. 11. The use of “other dimensions” are only “mathematical constructs” to help in determining “dynamic processes”. 12. Scaling can bring the size of the 3D structure to 10^-18. 13. Quantum tunneling can be explained by the ”voids”. 14. Spacetime vacuum is full of these “voids”. 15. The spacetime structure is in equilibrium and presently undetectable. ("kT ln(2)") 16. The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)"). A Casimir force 'engine'. 17. Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”. 18. Uncertainty as a mathematical formula has been worked out and must be used on where the waves are located. This was worked out by ….. James G. Gilson at [url]http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf[/url] Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum 19. The fine structure constant, * = cos(pi/N)/N. This formula gives the value of * to very great accuracy when N is set equal to 137. * = cos(pi/137)/137 = 7.297351 10−3. 20. A Mathematical approach for using the “SPOT” has been suggested by …. Gerard ’t Hooft at [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008 [/url] The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics 21. There are more “secrets” hidden in the structure. The “professionals should be able to make the relationship and get a different understanding of neutrinos, quarks, "virtual particles", Casimir force, ISL, Big Bang, Black Holes, and Dark Matter, CMBR, etc. 22. All of this “new physics” will have an implication on the understanding of how the universe evolved. [b] processes [/b] Doing processes, at this stage, would help to reveal more of the other secrets of the structure. The final dynamics/processes of the structure have not yet been worked out. We should not discount the possibility that the harmony of those 12 “waves” are being reflected into our everyday experiences…. Such as music. Are there some of possible models/theories that are being used by the “amateurs” that could help? Find them…. Bring them to the party with an explanation. Maybe we will have some fishermen/professionals who will be able to tell us if we have a a “red fish” or something promising for … PLAN “B”. See you at the party. [IMG]http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-026.gif[/IMG]

continuing

The party was attended by over 600 people. ----------------------------- My latest find. An approach which could be applied. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607032[/url] The group field theory approach to quantum gravity Daniele Oriti Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, England d.oriti@damtp.cam.ac.uk 08 July 2006 [quote]On the other hand, the overall picture of spacetime and of gravity that this approach is based on, despite the traditional nature of the language used to express it, is definitely radical and suggests the following. There exist fundamental building blocks or atoms of space, which can be combined in all sorts of ways and can give rise to all sorts of geometry and topology of space.[/quote] The first and most obvious candidate that needs to be confirmed or disproved is the quantum Planck scale “void”. We have the mathematical tools ( quantum geometry) that can be applied to make predictions for the next round of experiments at CERN. Will the experimental tools be adequate or will we have to pass on the problem to the next generation? My future search will be to look for the progress that is being made by our generation of experts. If your searches find anything…. Feel free to link it in my thread. For a summary of my model see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5473/index.html [b]Is it possible to have music? Of course! …Here is the math that can be applied to the “spot”?[/b] ……waves…. Planck void ….. quantum geometry …. 2 dimensions [b]Hamiltonian and physical Hilbert space in polymer quantum mechanics[/b] Authors: Alejandro Corichi, Tatjana Vukasinac, Jose A. Zapata Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 [URL=http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610072]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610072[/URL] [QUOTE] The dynamics is constructed as a continuum limit of effective theories characterized by a scale, and requires a renormalization of the inner product. The result is a physical Hilbert space in which the continuum Hamiltonian can be represented and that is unitarily equivalent to the Schr¨odinger representation of quantum mechanics. As a concrete implementation of our formalism, the simple harmonic oscillator is fully developed. [/QUOTE] ---------------------------------- Let’s-make-mu-sic.-Gaze-deep-ly-in-to-the-crys-tal. Ride-the-spi-ral.-Put-the-crys-tal-to-the-an-vil List-en-to-the-tune-of-the-ham-mer-as-it-beats Catch-the-ris-ing-rhy-thms-12-by-12-as-they-come[IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/3dspace.gif[/IMG] Breathe-in-the-me-lo-dy.-Let-the-har-mo-ny-sooth List-en-to-tho-se-spot-s.-Let-the-shiv-ers-come Feel-the-flush.-Ec-sta-sy-ri-ding-on-the-wa-ves Ride-the-wa-ves.-En-light-en-ment-is-near-at-hand Feel-the-flush-to-your-TOE.-Mak-ing-the-vi-sion-real ------------------------------------------- JAL:smile:

first principles

Good Day EVERYONE! I have spent 2 days catching up. I have 3 pages of quotes from all of you which leads to this presentation. © is a constant. Therefore, the distance, [I](l)[/I], that light travels is a constant. It has always been a constant. ------------------------------------- [B]Experiment # 1[/B] Get a pack of sticky circles from your office supply store. Mark six of them with a big “E”. It represents Energy in all its possible forms. The circle represents the smallest possible scale at which energy is contained. It is the Planck Area. It is the smallest distance that energy can travel. Your circles will look like the following arrangement. (energy_nodes) [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes.gif[/IMG] You cannot put the Planck scale energy nodes any closer than shown. They must be separated by a “nul” node of no energy. Therefore, the minimum total surface area is 24 Planck units. ---------------------------------------- [B]Experiment # 2[/B] Get an orange that has a circumference of those six circles. Stick your circle on the orange. You have now proven that the minimum size of a Planck Sphere is 24,[I](l)[/I] in area and that there can only be six Planck size ENERGY in a Planck size sphere. Play with it. You will be able to find all kinds of quantum geometry relationships, like Hex. packing. -------------------------------- [B]Experiment # 3[/B] Now, lets go to 3d. From the 2d arrangement, we will take one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the X plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Y plane. Then one ENERGY node and 3 “nul” nodes and place them on the Z plane. Mathematically, Good Elf says, “Please note that this is a spatially distributed complex function and is represented by a complex plane 6 dimensional function (x,y,z,ix,iy,iz) in the real most general three dimensional case.” To me, it is just the real location of the 2d energy in a 3d configuration. That will make a total of 6 energy nodes and 18 “nul” nodes. Here is my picture of one energy node and 3 “nul” nodes. (energy_nodes_2) [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes_2.gif[/IMG] This will make a 3d sphere that has 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. From the previous 2d energy distribution we can get two (2) 3d spheres that contain 3 energy nodes and 9 “nul” nodes. Each sphere will have a total of 12 nodes.(3d rotation) [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/3drotation.gif[/img] How many energy nodes does a proton or a neutron have? We call them “quarks”. Do you have a model that can generate “quarks”? A physicist will quickly point out that the total energy of a proton or a neutron is not the sum of the 3 quarks. There is something else making up the total energy. How right! Let’s put the proton into the 3d spacetime configuration that I have worked out, the 12 hex. packing of 12 spheres. There is plenty of room. 12 spheres X 12 nodes = 144 nodes that are available. A proton will only use 12 nodes. [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/spacetimemoving2.gif[/IMG] All of the above has been derived for “first principles”. The speed of light is CONSTANT. If you change the speed of light then you have changed the distance, [I](l)[/I], that light must travel. © as a constant depend directly on [I](l)[/I] the distance. It does not depend on the size of [I](l)[/I]. Therefore, [I](l)[/I] can be 10^-33 or even 10^-18. [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/sine.gif[/IMG] The discussion is at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587&st=1395&#entry166952

dynamics

[i][color=blue][B] 20 May NOW WE ARE STARTING TO KICK ASS! [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2629v1.pdf[/url] DUAL COMPUTATIONS OF NON-ABELIAN YANG-MILLS ON THE LATTICE J. WADE CHERRINGTON, J. DANIEL CHRISTENSEN, AND IGOR KHAVKINE 18 May 2007 By making topological excitations manifest, a dual model is well suited to evaluating proposed mechanisms of quark confinement, such as the dual superconductor picture. [b]Note: cubic packing and hex. packing for the plaquettes[/b] Our claim of ergodicity does however depend on the unproven hypothesis that exceptional zeros of the 18j symbol are isolated, i.e. the zeros do not form surfaces that separate the space of admissible spin foams. [b]Note: hint..when turning a coin (plaquette), (2d) you go from the face (+), to the edge ( zero), to the back (-).[/b] ------------- 17 April I can only attribute the silence of this forum to the fact that the “seekers” have been correlating information. On SCALING AND DIMENSIONAL REDUCTION -“Quantum Gravidynamics” fixed point = minimum length = void created by the structure of double tetra I find this approach to be a doorway into the dynamics. [url]http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-5/ [/url] "The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity" by Max Niedermaier and Martin Reuter 05 Oct 2006 You can start by reading 1.4 Relation to other approaches Ref. [url]http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-5/[/url] --------------------- In case you have not read it yet. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0511/0511021v1.pdf [/url] A Minimal Length from the Cutoff Modes in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity Martin Reuter and Jan-Markus Schwindt 02 Nov 2005 ------------- Further reading. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605011v2.pdf [/url] Gravity, Geometry and the Quantum Abhay Ashtekar 14 July 2006 If you look at the bottom of p. 12 “The state does remains sharply peaked at the classical trajectory till the matter density reaches a critical value: (see formula) which is about 0.82 times the Planck density. However, then it bounces.” When I use QMLS (Quantum Minimum Length Structure), I do not reach the Planck Scale. I do not make the interpretation/speculation of “a bounce”. This is where Abhay Ashtekar reached the 2d structure of the universe. The triads are in a dynamic 2d configuration as they would be for the horizon for a black hole. Continuing… “But when the matter density reaches the Planck regime, quantum geometry effects become significant. Interestingly, they make gravity repulsive, not only halting the collapse but turning it around; the quantum state is again peaked on the classical solution now representing the post-big-bang, expanding universe.” As you can see, a new mechanism, “make gravity repulsive” is needed to get the “big bounce”. QMLS does not need to invent a new mechanism/speculation. To get 3d, all that is needed is for the triads to get into a dynamic 3d configuration. It is all speculation until the theories can come up with a model to do dynamic simulations. ---------------- 08 April [url]http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/coldatoms07/wu/ [/url] Feb 01, 2007 Exploring New States of Matter in the p-Orbital Bands of Optical Lattices Dr. Congjun Wu, KITP Optical lattices with cold atoms have become a new frontier for exploring interesting physics in strongly correlated systems. In particular, recent experiments on high orbital bands provide a wonderful new opportunity for studying orbital physics, which is characterized by orbital degeneracy and spatial anisotropy. In this talk, we will present new features of orbital physics in the p-orbital bands with bosons and fermions, which are not usually realized in solid state systems. These include quantum stripe ordering of orbital angular momentum moments in the triangular lattice, Wigner crystallization of neutral atoms in the flat band of the honeycomb lattice, and frustrated superfluidity with time-reversal symmetry breaking in the double-well lattice. Signatures of these new states in the time of flight experiments will be discussed. -------------- What are the experiments that are being done related to understanding the quantum world? One of those paper might shed some light. [url]http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/coldatoms07/ [/url] KITP Program: Strongly Correlated Phases in Condensed Matter and Degenerate Atomic Systems (January 29 - June 15, 2007) -------------- 22 March in dynamics [url]http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/java/dance/dance.html[/url] ------------ [/b][/i][/color] Finding an interesting approach to solving the [b]dynamics[/b], that is being developed by K. Giesel and T. Thiemann Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) is a major milestone in my learning curve. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607099[/url] Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) I. Conceptual Setup K. Giesel∗ and T. Thiemann† The present paper introduces a new conceptual framework for canonical quantum gravity resulting in a novel top to bottom approach. The problem with establishing the semiclassical limit of LQG has to do with the quantum dynamics: In AQG the coherent states are linear combinations of spin network functions only if σ is compact and even then these spin network functions are labelled by the unique abstract graph while the coefficients are labelled by the embedded graph. This tiny difference has e.g. the consequence that in LQG coherent states over different graphs are automatically orthogonal while in AQG this is not necessarily the case. Since we can accommodate any σ in our formulation, AQG can presumably deal with topology change. Notice that in AQG, in contrast to the embedded graphs of LQG, the infinite algebraic graph is fixed. AQG theories defined on different infinite algebraic graphs are unitarily equivalent if and only if there is a permutation of the vertices such that the algebraic graphs can be transformed into each other. Therefore in this paper and the companion paper [b]we will focus on cubic algebraic graphs[/b] (all vertices have valence six) which will simplify our calculations and turns out to be sufficient in order to semiclassical calculations. [b][i](note: need the right model to get the right answers)[/i][/b] Notice that no continuum limit has to be performed on the algebraic graph. None of the operators of the theory depends on a lattice length. This is not possible because the theory is manifestly background independent. There are no scales to be sent to zero, everything is UV finite. Notice that any three manifold admits an infinite number of triangulations by tetrahedra or cubes and the graphs dual to such triangulations are simplicial (all vertices are four valent) or cubic (all vertices are six valent) respectively. Thus we focus on simplicial or cubic algebraic graphs. [b][i](note: sounds like packing to me.)[/i][/b] Thus, the exact kernel of the master constraint could be empty or may contain too few solutions because the algebra of the constraints is anomalous. If this is the case then, as already mentioned, one must modify the master Constraint. There are several proposals: Either one subtracts from the Master Constraint the minimum of the spectrum, or one allows a whole interval of zero in the spectum to define solutions [42] or one succeeds in defining non – anomalous constraints on the lattice, for instance by renormalisation group techniques [29]. [b][i](note: Since the double tetrahedron can be imbedded inside the cube it would be the right model to get the right answers)[/i][/b] Finally, an interesting question is whether there is an algebraic version not only of the volume operator but also of area [18, 43] and length operators of LQG [44]. This requires a diffeomorphism invariant definition of the classical version of these operators in terms of matter whose analytical expression uses 3d rather than 2d or 1d integrals in order that there is an embedding independent lift, see [13] for an explanation. While the construction of these operators is not necessary because there are other functions on the classical, spatially diffeomorphism invariant phase space which separate the points, it would certainly be desirable to have those at ones disposal. We will leave this for future research. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607100[/url] Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) II. Semiclassical Analysis K. Giesel∗ and T. Thiemann† In this paper we will display the semiclassical analysis of the (extended) algebraic Master constraint operator associated with an algebraic graph of cubic symmetry and show that AQG reproduces the correct infinitesimal generators of General Relativity in the semiclassical limit. Here we will only consider the gravitational sector. However, the techniques used here carry over to all standard matter coupling. We decided to present this calculation very detailed, because as pointed out in our companion paper [2], this is the first time semiclassical perturbation theory wihtin AQG allows to compute expectation values of dynamical operators. p.25 Thus, the semiclassical limit of the algebraic Master constraint can indeed be interpreted as the discretisation of the classical Master constraint on a cubic lattice, [b][i](note: Or you could say, as I do, “cubic packing”.)[/i][/b] Consequently, we have shown that the dynamics of AQG which are encoded in bM reproduce the correct infinitesimal generators of General Relativity. Furthermore, we discussed the next-to-leading order contribution of the expectation value of bM and could show that these quantum fluctuations are finite. A more detailed analysis of the quantum fluctuations will be postponed to future research. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607101[/url] Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) III. Semiclassical Perturbation Theory K. Giesel and T. Thiemann With this new tool, the non – Abelean calculation, although technically more involved, is then exactly analogous to the Abelean calculation, thus justifying the Abelean analysis in retrospect. The results of this paper turn AQG into a calculational discipline. In AQG on the other hand the dynamics never changes the number of degrees of freedom and the just mentioned problem disappears. Furthermore, the annoying graph dependence of the normalisable coherent states of LQG disappears in AQG. p.22 Explicit Example: The case N = 2 Notice that for standard matter the terms appearing in the master constraint we have 2 ≤ N ≤ 12. We will exemplify the procedure for N = 2 and consider arbitrary k. This means that in order to obtain a computable error bound of order k + 1 we must have l ≥ 15/(2(k + 1)). Notice that while we have done perturbation theory within AQG for cubic algebraic graphs, everything goes through also in LQG for arbitrary graphs. Hence the present paper turns AQG and LQG into a calculational discipline. [b][i](note: It could be used on my model. It would be interesting to find out if turns out to be the “final” right model to use.)[/i][/b] ------------------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608210 [/url] Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View T. Thiemann 29 Aug 2006 Loosely speaking, background independence means that the spacetime metric is not an external structure on which matter fields and gravitational perturbations propagate. Rather, the metric is a dynamical entity which becomes a fluctuating quantum operator. We will mostly consider pure gravity, matter coupling works completely similar [38]. p.21 Quantum dynamics The quantum dynamics consists in two steps: 1. Reduction of the system with respect to the gauge transformations generated by the constraints and 2. Introduction of a notion of time with respect to which observables (gauge invariant operators) evolve. p.26 Consider seven additional tetrahedra _ǫ v,1(e1, e2, e3), ..,_ǫ v,7(e1, e2, e3) which are obtained by analytically continuing28 the segments sI(_ǫ v(e1, e2, e3)) through the vertex so that we obtain altogether eight tetrahedral of equal coordinate volume which are like the eight octants of a Cartesian coordinate system. [b][i](note: This is my double tetrahedral)[/i][/b] p. 28 The largest source of ambiguities is in the choice of the family of triangulations ǫ 7→ τ ǫ γ adapted to a graph. In particular, while it is natural to align the edges of the tetrahedra of the triangulations with the beginning segments of the edges of the graph30 because there are no other natural terahedra available in the problem, it is not the only logically possible choice. p. 39 Physical applications [b][i](note: You should read them. There are too many to quote.)[/i][/b] p. 44 The intuitive idea behind Lorentz invariance violation in quantum gravity is the apparently Planck scale discreteness of LQG: If true, then [b]quantum geometry looks more like a crystal than vacuum[/b] even if the gravitational vacuum state looks like Minkowski space on large scales. A folklore statement that seems to have entered several physics blogs is that weakly discontinuous representations of the kind used in LQG do not work for the harmonic oscillator so why should they work for more complicated theories? This is the conclusion reached in [124]. As we will now show, while [124] is technically correct, its physical conclusion is completely wrong. …Hence we may restrict to any one of these irreducible subspaces and conclude that the physics of the discontinuous representation is indistinguishable from the physics of the Schr¨odinger representation within the error δ. p.47 A continuously updated and fairly complete list of all LQG publications to date can be found in [132]. A brief look at this list will show that there are papers of all levels of rigour and that mathematically more sophisticated papers were motivated and driven by less rigorous papers which started from a physical idea. It is true that not all questions have been answered in connection with the quantum dynamics and research on it will continue to occupy many researchers during many years to come. However, what is asked for in [12] is too much: Nobody expects that one can completely solve the theory. We cannot even solve classical General Relativity completely and we will probably never be able to. --------------- citations Lucien Hardy "Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms" [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012[/url] Here a some quotes p.9 The surface of the set of normalized states must therefore be N2−2 dimensional. This means that, in general, the pure states are of lower dimension than the surface of the convex set of normalized states. The only exception to this is the case N = 2 when the surface of the convex set is 2-dimensional and the pure states are specified by two real parameters. This case is illustrated by the Bloch sphere. Points on the surface of the Bloch sphere correspond to pure states. p.16 6. We show that the N = 2 case corresponds to the Bloch sphere and hence we obtain quantum theory for the N = 2 case. p.20 8.6 The Bloch sphere We are left with K = N2 (since K = N has been ruled out by Axiom 5). Consider the simplest nontrivial case N = 2 and K = 4. Normalized states are contained in a K−1 = 3 dimensional convex set. The surface of this set is two-dimensional. All pure states correspond to points on this surface. The four fiducial states can all be taken to be pure. They correspond to a linearly independent set. The reversible transformations that can act on the states form a compact Lie Group. The Lie dimension (number of generators) of this group of reversible transformations cannot be equal to one since, if it were, it could not transform between the fiducial states. This is because, under a change of basis, a compact Lie group can be represented by orthogonal matrices [21]. If there is only one Lie generator then it will generate pure states on a circle. But the end points of four linearly independent vectors cannot lie on a circle since this is embedded in a two-dimensional subspace. Hence, the Lie dimension must be equal to two. [b]The pure states are represented by points on the two-dimensional surface. (See my example using the orange to see the minimum size of the points. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203&st=45)[/b] Furthermore, since the Lie dimension of the group of reversible transformations is equal to two it must be possible to transform a given pure state to any point on this surface. If we can find this surface then we know the pure states for N = 2. This surface must be convex since all points on it are extremal. We will use this property to show that the surface is ellipsoidal and that, with appropriate choice of fiducial states, it can be made spherical (this is the Bloch sphere). p. 21 (84) This equation defines a two dimensional surface T embedded in three dimensions. p.22 Therefore, we have obtained quantum theory from the axioms for the special case N = 2. Since we have now reproduced quantum theory for the N = 2 case we can say that • Pure states can be represented by |ψihψ| where |ψi = u|1i+v|2i and where u and v are complex numbers satisfying |u|2 + |v|2 = 1. • The reversible transformations which can transform one pure state to another can be seen as rotations of the Bloch sphere, or as the effect of a unitary operator ˆU in SU(2). This second observation will be especially useful when we generalize to any N. However, each two-dimensional fiducial subspace must, by Axiom 3, behave as a system of dimension 2. Hence, if we take those elements of D which correspond to an N = 2 fiducial subspace they must have the form given in equation (87). We can then calculate that for N = 3 p.26 While continuous dimensional spaces play a role in some applications of quantum theory it is worth asking whether we expect continuous dimensional spaces to appear in a truly fundamental physical theory of nature. [b]Considerations from quantum gravity suggest that space is not continuous at the planck scale and that the amount of information inside any finite volume is finite implying that the number of distinguishable states is countable. (see my orange example)[/b] Given the mathematical difficulties that appear with continuous dimensional Hilbert spaces it is also natural to ask what our motivation for considering such spaces was in the first place. ------------ Lucien Hardy’s next paper examines the challenges of mathematically analyzing a dynamic system and comes up with an approach. [b]This is where everybody is stuck.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509120 [/url] Probability Theories with Dynamic Causal Structure: A New Framework for Quantum Gravity Lucien Hardy Perimeter Institute, 31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada May 18, 2006 Hence, we require a mathematical framework for physical theories with the following properties: 1. It is probabilistic. 2. It admits dynamic causal structure. The approach taken in this paper is operational. We define an operational notion of space-time consisting of elementary regions Rx. An arbitrary region R1 may consist of many elementary regions. In region R1 we may perform some action which we denote by FR1 (for example we may set a Stern-Gerlach apparatus to measure spin along a certain direction) and observe something XR1 (the outcome of the spin measurement for example). p. 16 We apply the group of continuous reversible transformations (implied by the continuity postulate) to show that the set of states must live inside a ball (with pure states on the surface). This is the Bloch ball of quantum theory for a two dimensional Hilbert space. Thus, we get the correct space of states for two dimensional Hilbert space. We now apply the information postulate to the general N case to impose that the state restricted to any two dimensional Hilbert space behaves as a state for Hilbert space of dimension 2. By this method we can construct the space of states for general N. Various considerations give us the correct space of measurements and transformations and the tensor product rule and, thereby, we reconstruct quantum theory for finite N. p.18 To this end we will give a framework (which admits a formulation of quantum theory) which does not take as fundamental the notion of an evolving state. The framework will, though, allow us to construct states evolving through a sequence of surfaces. However, these surfaces need not be space-like (indeed, there may not even be a useful notion of space-like) p. 39 Up till now everything we have done has been quite general. In particular, all this works for any choice of nested regions R(t) or, equivalently, for any choice of disjoint elementary time-slices Rt. To deal with (ii) we need to add spatial structure which we will deal with later. p.51 The causaloid is a fixed object. Yet at the same time we have not assumed any fixed causal structure in deriving the causaloid formalism. That is to say we have not specified any particular causal ordering between the elementary regions. In this sense we must have allowed the possibility of dynamic causal structure. It interesting to see a little more explicitly how this can work in the causaloid formalism. p.52 Dynamic causal structure is likely to be quite generic for causaloids. However, it is unlikely to be as clear cut as the hypothetical example we just discussed. In general we cannot expect the sort of clear cut causal structure we see evident in the causaloid diagrams of Fig. 9. In general, the causal relationship between nodes may be more complicated than can be represented by pairwise links. Thus, when we speak of “causal structure” we do not necessarily intend to imply that we have well defined causal structure of the type that allows us to determine whether two nodes are separated by a time-like or a space-like interval. p.56 Thus, we see that the causaloid formalism provides us with a new calculus capable of dealing with situations where Newton’s differential calculus would be inappropriate. The advantage of differential calculus and the implied ontology is that, where it works, it affords a simple picture of reality which allows significant symmetries to be applied. We can hope that increased familiarity with the causaloid approach may achieve something similar. p.57 It is often stated that experiments to test a theory of QG will involve probing nature at the Planck scale. It is no coincidence that apparatuses we might construct to do this would have to be very big. As illustrated above, postulated variation at a small scale shows up at a large scale and we might even doubt that there is any ontological meaning to talking about what is happening on this small scale. The fiducial measurements in the causaloid formulation for such an experiment will, we expect, be at a much larger scale than the Planck scale. [b][i]( see my orange example)[/i][/b] p.63 The causaloid formalism deals with matrices between elementary regions. In the case that there exist RULES we may only need to specify local lambda matrices and lambda matrices for pairs of regions (as in QT). This is closer to Einstein’s original approach than providing an amplitude for an entire history is. p.64 One problem which is common to most approaches which start with a Planck scale picture is that it is difficult to account for the four dimensional appearance of our world at a macroscopic level (Smolin calls this the “inverse problem” [33]). Since the approach in this paper starts at the macroscopic level, it may allow us to circumvent this problem in the same way Einstein does in GR. Thus, we would not attempt to prove that space-time is four dimensional at the macroscopic level but put this in by hand. This is not an option in Planck scale approaches to QG because the constraint that a four dimensional world emerges at the macroscopic scale has no obvious expression at the Plank scale. The best approach, however, may be to combine an approach which posits some properties at a Planck scale with the causaloid approach. By working in both directions we might hope to constrain the theory in enough different ways that it becomes unique. p.65 The approach taken here attempts to combine the early operational philosophy of Einstein as applied to GR with the operationalism of Bohr as applied to QT (see [35] for a discussion of how Einstein and Bohr might have engaged in a more constructive debate). We do this primarily for methodological reasons to obtain a mathematical framework which might be suitable for a theory of QG without committing ourselves to operationalism as a philosophy of physics. In fact it is interesting just how close this early philosophy of Einstein is to the later philosophy of Bohr. [b]His analysis will find opposition from people who have theories that fail his reasoning and will get support from people who have theories that are within his description. I find that he has gone too far in the philosophy direction to be able to produce a model. ----------------- For a comparison read.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701142[/url] Quantum gravity and cosmological observations Martin Bojowald 26 Jan. 2007 [B]p. 2 There is an additional expectation from quantum gravity, namely that space has a discrete structure on very small scales. One can think of this structure as an irregular lattice whose typical plaquette size p is close to ℓ2 P. But unlike the Planck length, this is a geometrical parameter or field specifying the quantum gravity state and can thus be dynamical. This parameter brings in crucial information from quantum gravity, unlike ℓP which is determined simply by parameters of quantum mechanics and classical gravity. ------------- I'll add this bit of info. [b]causaloid…. Plaquette ….. SPOT …. What’s in a name?[/b] If you want to produce a model, then you should also be familiar with the following information. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601097[/url] Planck-scale physics: facts and beliefs Diego Meschini∗ Department of Physics, University of Jyv¨askyl¨a, PL 35 (YFL), FI-40014 Jyv¨askyl¨a, Finland. January 23, 2006 The relevance of the Planck scale to a theory of quantum gravity has become a worryingly little examined assumption that goes unchallenged in the majority of research in this area. However, in all scientific honesty, the significance of Planck’s natural units in a future physical theory of spacetime is only a plausible, yet by no means certain, assumption. The purpose of this article is to clearly separate fact from belief in this connection. We will argue that quantum gravity scholars, eager to embark on the details of their investigations, overlook the question of the likelihood of their assumptions regarding the Planck scale—thus creating seemingly indubitable facts out of merely plausible beliefs. p. 5 Also Baez (2000) made welcome critical observations against the hypothetical relevance of the Planck length in a theory of quantum gravity. Firstly, he mentioned that the dimensionless factor (here denoted Kl) might in fact turn out to be very large or very small, which means that the order of magnitude of the Planck length as is normally understood (i.e. with Kl = 1) need not be meaningful at all. More interestingly, Baez also recognized that “a theory of quantum gravity might involve physical constants other than c, G, and hbar.” [b][see my orange for an example for a definition of what c as a constant implies)[/b] p.8 The second alternative takes for granted that at least all three constants G, h, and c must play a role in quantum gravity. Although this is a seemingly sensible expectation, it need not hold true either, for a theory of quantum gravity may also be understood in less conventional ways. For example, not as a quantum-mechanical theory of (general-relativistic) gravity [b]but as a quantum mechanical theory of empty spacetime,[/b] as we explain below. p. 9 In view of the repeated difficulties and uncertainties encountered so far in attempts to uncover gravity’s quantum mechanical aspects, one may wonder whether the issue might not rather be whether spacetime beyond its metric field—i.e. empty spacetime as characterized by its bare points—may have quantum-mechanical aspects. [b](see my orange example for a definition of points)[/b] p.13 Further, we argued that the physical meaning of the Planck units could only be known after the successful equations of the theory which assumes them—quantum gravity—were known. To achieve this, however, [b]the recognition and observation of some phenomenological effects genuinely related to spacetime are essential. (Like the fact that the speed of light is constant.) You cannot get the right answers if you do not have the right model. Now…. Go look at my model and then try to make a better model. Who knows? Your model might make it possible to reach the next level of technical innovations and get a better understanding of the universe.[/b] Jal ------------ [i][color=blue][B] 22 March in dynamics http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/java/dance/dance.html ------------ [/b][/i][/color] [url]http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/ [/url] Xiao-Gang Wen Home Page Read his first chapter A new book Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems ---from the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons Chapter 1: Introduction Then try out his java model [url]http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/java/dance/dance.html [/url] It will show the quantum minimum length structure in a dynamic situation. Try it with 12. The next thing that you should do is read his published papers. I spent time reading his papers. In my simple way, [b]he is doing the dynamics of Quantum Minimum Length Structure with the infusion of his level of education (a "math kid"). I would expect that the devil will get a good beating.[/b] ----------------

Bloch sphere

When two mathematicians talk to each other they can understand each other because they have given specific definitions to the words that they use. Each branch of mathematic has their definition. It is the same thing in physics. English, on the other hand, lacks these precise definitions. Therefore, when trying to communicate in English, there is confusion of what is meant and what is being described. Sure, “orange” is not a word that you would use. You are smart enough to “translate” that it could be the use of a “Bloch ball/ Bloch sphere”. Some people might find it easier to relate to my model by thinking about “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere”. [b]1. The surface of the “Bloch ball or Bloch sphere” is what we are “experiencing”. 2. Then Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those pure states (2D packing). 3. Then because the speed of light is a constant that means that those pure state do not have to be at the Planck scale. Their size will be determined by experimental observations.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012[/url] "Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms" PURE STATES [b]The pure states are represented by points on the two-dimensional surface.[/B] We apply the group of continuous reversible transformations (implied by the continuity postulate) to show that the set of states must live inside a ball (with pure states on the surface). This is the Bloch ball of quantum theory for a two dimensional Hilbert space. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104088 [/url] Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation P. 10 If one admits that mixed states cannot be objective properties, because another observer, possessing privileged information, can know which pure state underlies the mixed state, then it becomes very tempting to regard the pure states as giving the “true” state of a system. Probabilities that come from pure states would then be regarded as objective, and the probabilities for pure states within an ensemble decomposition of a mixed state would be regarded as subjective, expressing our ignorance of which pure state is the “true” state of the system. An immediate and, in our view, irremediable problem with this idea is that a mixed state has infinitely many ensemble decompositions into pure states [19,56,57], so the distinction between subjective and objective becomes hopelessly blurred. Is the author saying that the Bloch ball cannot be a realizable concept? Then he goes on, … to saying that you can have the Bloch ball. (with pure states on the surface) p.15 Our problem hinges on finding a special kind of POVM, one for which any set of outcome probabilities specifies a unique operator. This boils down to a problem in pure linear algebra. [b]The space of operators on Hd is itself a linear vector space of dimension d2.[/b] The quantity tr( A†B ) serves as an inner product on that space. [i]note: Therefore, inside the Bloch ball is the complex function and the simple/pure state is on the surface of the sphere.[/i] If the POVM elements E_ span the space of operators—there must be at least d2 POVM elements in the set—the measurement probabilities p_ = tr(ρE_)—now thought of as projections in the directions E_—are sufficient to specify a unique operator ρ. Two distinct density operators ρ and σ must give rise to different measurement statistics. Such measurements, which might be called informationally complete, have been studied for some time. p. 17 It should now begin to be apparent why we chose to imagine a measurement E consisting of precisely d2 linearly independent elements. This allows us to assert the existence of a unique operator Ap on Hd corresponding to each point p in the domain of the integral. The ultimate goal here is to turn Eqs. (4.12) and (4.13) into a single operator equation. p.20 [i]Then he goes on to say that you cannot have unique operator/pure state/ real numbers on the Bloch ball[/i] To give a concrete example, let us take the case of real-Hilbert-space quantum mechanics. This theory is the same as ordinary quantum mechanics in all aspects except that the Hilbert spaces are defined over the field of real numbers rather than the complex numbers. It turns out that this is a case where the quantum de Finetti theorem fails. Let us start to explain why by first describing how the particular proof technique used above loses validity in the new context. [i] My understanding is that once you have generated the Bloch ball by complex numbers then you can treat it as if it was “real-Hilbert-space quantum mechanics” (as if you had real numbers?) What would be wrong with generation a model from the pure state? After all that is what we are observing in the macro world, (waves are particle-like and particles are wave-like), the surface of “Bloch ball/ Bloch sphere”. [/i] … look up … [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508039[/url] Is Hilbert space discrete? Roman V. Buniy,1, ∗ Stephen D. H. Hsu,1, † and A. Zee2, ‡ 1Institute of Theoretical Science University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 2Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 06 Aug 2005 We therefore assume the existence of a long-distance (infrared) regulator L in addition to a short-distance (ultraviolet) regulator l P . [b]While we have motivated a non-zero ǫ using quantum gravity, we stress that discreteness may appear at a dimensional scale larger than l P , and that experimentalists should keep an open mind.[/b] [img]http://duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/blogfiles/qubitfigure.jpg[/img] Do you see his error? Hint… Planck Scale gives is the minimum size and the distribution of those points. (2D packing) [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes.gif[/IMG]

minimum length

[color=blue][B] 19 Fev 2008 Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scales? [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0708.3550[/url] 13 April All approaches are about symmetry and minimum length [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9504/9504036v1.pdf[/url] Spin Networks in Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity, John C. Baez ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9301/9301028v2.pdf [/url] Knot Theory and Quantum Gravity in Loop Space: A Primer Jorge Pullin ----------- 03 April more info... 31 March... "squeezing"...Another approach to understanding minimum length. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703144[/url] Dynamical coherent states and physical solutions of quantum cosmological bounces Martin Bojowald_ 29 march 2007 [quote]…As an exactly solvable model even at the quantum level, it illustrates properties of dynamical coherent states and provides the basis for a systematic perturbation theory of loop quantum gravity…. …We will see that the coherent state structure of the model is much richer than that of unsqueezed Gaussian states, with squeezing influencing the general behavior significantly….[/quote] ---------- 29 March ... Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703135 [/url] Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces Miguel Campiglia1, Rodolfo Gambini1, Jorge Pullin2 27 March 2007 [quote] We quantize the exterior of spherically symmetric vacuum space-times using a midi-superspace reduction within the Ashtekar new variables. Through a partial gauge fixing we eliminate the diffeomorphism constraint and are left with a Hamiltonian constraint that is first class. We complete the quantization in the loop representation. We also use the model to discuss the issues that will arise in more general contexts in the “uniform discretization” approach to the dynamics. p.12 If one adopts the point of view commonly used in loop quantum cosmology, that the quantum of distance should have a minimum value, then one would not expect to take the limit ρ going to zero, but to keep the parameters at a minimum value. [b]In such a case one could expect to eliminate the singularity[/b]. This is plausible since then the triads would likely not go to zero.[/quote] [b] this can be achieved by applying/obeying the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS).This approach could be applied to find out what is happening on a membrane; both are 2D.[/b] ------------------ 24 March ... Quantum Mechanics and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle[/b][/color] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610056 [/url] [b]Quantum Mechanics and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle[/b] Jang Young Bang_ and Micheal S. Berger† 01 Dec 2006 [quote]VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We have derived the generalized uncertainty principle from a toy model of discretized space by considering quantum mechanics on a circle where the compacification involves the momentum. This model may be useful in exploring how the ultraviolet limit is approached in more realistic models of discrete spacetime or models of quantum gravity with a fundamental or minimum length. This may result in an improved understanding of the origin of the generalized uncertainty principle in theories of quantum gravity.[/quote] ---------------- For what it’s worth … let it be recorded that I was the first to cite and refer to “Multi-Particle States in Deformed Special Relativity” by S. Hossenfelder. At [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702016v2.pdf[/url] ------------------ [b]I have shown two ways of understanding minimum length. [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes.gif[/IMG] The uncertainty (location of the energy density, 6 of them) can only be at one of those 24 locations. and [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes_2.gif[/IMG] The uncertainty is at the location … 1, 2, 3, or 4.[/b] Let’s see if you have been paying attention. The devil is in the details. If the energy density is at position # 1 then the uncertainty will be between position #1 and position # 3. Why? Because position # 2 is too close for minimum scale and position # 4 is too far for minimum scale and too close to position # 1. Therefore, the uncertainty will be between position # 1 and # 3. -------------- There are good links to minimum length at [url]http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/05/minimal-length-scale.html[/url] Bee’s The Minimal Length Scale Remember... Finding the dead end is as important as blazing a new path. [url]http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c06/hossenfelder/pdf/Hossenfelder_SP_KITP.pdf [/url] THE MINIMUM LENGTH A POWER POINT PRESENTATION -------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0611/0611017v1.pdf [/url] Phenomenological Quantum Gravity S. Hossenfelder 01 Nov 2006 -------------- [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-ph%2F0512050[/url] Studying the effects of minimal length in large extra dimensional models in the jet + missing energy channels at hadron colliders Gautam Bhattacharyya 1, Kumar Rao 2, K. Sridhar 02 July 2006 ---------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0603/0603032v2.pdf [/url] Interpretation of Quantum Field Theories with a Minimal Length Scale S. Hossenfelder 23 May 2006 --------------- [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F0510245[/url] Self-consistency in Theories with a Minimal Length S. Hossenfelder 21 Feb 2006 ------------------ [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F0502142[/url] The Casimir Effect in the Presence of a Minimal Length U. Harbach S. Hossenfelder 15 March 2005 --------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0404/0404205v1.pdf [/url] Signatures of a minimal length scale in high precision experiments U. Harbach, S. Hossenfelder, M. Bleicher, and H. St¨ocker 23 April 2004 ------------ This can be can extrapolated and you can see that the minimum length quantum structure is in the arrangements of the atoms [url]http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0309/0309035.pdf[/url] ….. in the arrangement of the molecules [url]http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/index.html [/url] …. and in the arrangement of everything. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0207/0207116.pdf [/url] [b]The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe.[/b] There is a minimum length. Here is the structure. [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/min_length.GIF[/img] All of this evidence is right before our nose and is now being considered and evaluated by the scientific community. (see previous links ie. Bloch sphere) As I have said before, the dynamic is an important component which is very well presented in “Structuralism”. [url]http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf[/url] Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics by Dean Rickles and Steven French ------------------- Keep an eye on Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog at [url]http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ [/url]. I’m sure that she will be aware of new developments before me. ------------- Trying to determine if there is a minimum length has been asked/researched before. ------------------ [url]http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0412/0412307.pdf [/url] Self-organized criticality in quantum gravity Mohammad H. Ansari_ and Lee Smolin† University of Waterloo, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 3G1 and Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, On, Canada N2L 2Y5 (Dated: April 29, 2006) We study a simple model of spin network evolution motivated by the hypothesis that the emergence of classical space-time from a discrete microscopic dynamics may be a self-organized critical process. Self organized critical systems are statistical systems that naturally evolve without fine tuning to critical states in which correlation functions are scale invariant. We study several rules for evolution of frozen spin networks in which the spins labelling the edges evolve on a fixed graph. We find evidence for a set of rules which behaves analogously to sand pile models in which a critical state emerges without fine tuning, in which some correlation functions become scale invariant. ------------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505144[/url] Minimum Length from First Principles Xavier Calmeta∗, Michael Graesserb†and Stephen D.H Hsuc‡ aDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, UNC Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255. bCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 cInstitute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403. May 27, 2006 We show that no device or gedanken experiment is capable of measuring a distance less than the Planck length. By "measuring a distance less than the Planck length" we mean, technically, resolve the eigenvalues of the position operator to within that accuracy. The only assumptions in our argument are causality, the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics and a dynamical criteria for gravitational collapse from classical general relativity called the hoop conjecture. The inability of any gedanken experiment to measure a sub-Planckian distance suggests the existence of a minimal length. ------------------ It has also been discussed here [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75942[/url] Had the investigation of minimum length continued to asking, “What does the Quantum Minimum Length Structure look like?” I think that the conclusion would have been, [b]The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe.[/b] ---------------- 13 Feb.07 [b]The “quantum minimum length structure” is the building block of our universe and of my model.[/b] I should include some inspirational references for my model. [url]http://www.weburbia.com/pg/discrete.htm[/url] It has been argued by 't Hooft that this finiteness of entropy and information in a black-hole is also evidence for the discreteness of space-time. In fact the number of degrees of freedom must be given by the area in Planck units of a surface surrounding the region of space. This has led to some speculative ideas about how quantum gravity theories might work through a holographic mechanism, [b]i.e. it is suggested that physics must be formulated with degrees of freedom distributed on a two dimensional surface with the third spatial dimension being dynamically generated.[/b] [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9601014 [/url] Quantization of Point Particles in 2+1 Dimensional Gravity and Space-Time Discreteness Authors: G. 't Hooft Comments: 23 pages Plain TeX, 3 Figures Report-no: THU-96/02 Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 13 (1996) 1023-1040 By investigating the canonical commutation rules for gravitating quantized particles in a 2+1 dimensional world it is found that these particles live on a space-time lattice. The space-time lattice points can be characterized by three integers. Various representations are possible, the details depending on the topology chosen for energy-momentum space. We find that an S2 ×S1 topology yields a physically most interesting lattice within which first quantization of Dirac particles is possible. An S3 topology also gives a lattice, but does not allow first quantized particles. It is somewhat puzzling to the present author why the lattice structure of space and time had escaped attention from other investigators up till now. Since we are dealing with angles, not hyperbolic angles, it is not advised to use hyperbolic spaces but rather compact spaces. Here we emphasize that the lattice structure has been derived from the mathematical expressions for the relation between momenta and the Hamiltonian, rather than postulated. Only with the lattice spacing precisely defined by the Planck length do the field equations take the form of difference equations involving only nearest neighbors on the lattice. [b][i] My model uses the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure”[/i][/b] If energy-momentum space is indeed represented by an S2 sphere we will be forced to restrict ourselves to the SO(3) quantum numbers l and m, but it is conceivable that more complex theories can be constructed; we leave this to other investigators. It may seem that angular momentum ought to be quantized in units _/(_−H) rather than 1. We deliberately postponed this complication. The reason is that this topological aspect of space emerges if one particle circumnavigates another particle, in other words, it becomes relevant only if we consider two or more particles. In the present work only single particle states were considered. The center of our coordinate frame is not a particle. We seem to have hit upon a new terrain of lattice theories where much remains to be explored. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701097[/url] ON THE FREE-WILL POSTULATE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS Gerard ’t Hooft 15 Jan 2007 All we should demand is that the model in question obeys the most rigid requirements of internal logic. Our model should consist of a complete description of its physical variables, the values they can take, and the laws they obey while evolving. The notion of time has to be introduced if only to distinguish cause from effect : cause must always precede effect. The unconstrained initial state condition states that, the deterministic equations should determine what will happen next. However, these deterministic equations cannot contain wave functions, and therefore, one cannot demand to have the free will to modify the settings of a detector, without even affecting the wave functions of the objects measured. According to our deterministic theories, these wave functions are man-made artifacts, and they can therefore not be kept unaffected. These wave functions may well depend critically on past events, in a fully conspiratorial manner. A quite similar situation is known to exist in local gauge theories for elementary particles. Fixing the gauge by some gauge condition may generate field configurations that depend in a conspiratorial way on the past or the future, but this has no effect on the physically observable events, just because these are gauge-independent. In the same vein, the dependence on wave functions may appear to be conspiratorial, just because the wave functions as such are unobservable. ---------- [B]Other people have done the reduction to two dimensions by using different approaches.[/B] [url]http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0505111[/url] ENTROPY AND AREA IN LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY JOHN SWAIN Department of Physics, Northeastern University, 110 Forsyth Street Boston, MA 02115 Canada 30 Oct 2005 [quote][B]Conclusion Here something similar happens in that the microstructure of space is modified in LQG, but now the dimension of space is not reduced by a small amount, but all the way from 3 to 2 as distances become small![/B][/quote] ----------------- [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2003/eprints/to_gr-qc_alltime.shtml [/url] Top Cited Articles of All Time (2003 edition) [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2006/eprints/to_gr-qc_alltime.shtml [/url] Top Cited Articles of All Time (2006 edition) ----------------- In 2003 .. 455 times, in 2006 .. 659 times [url]http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9310026[/url] DIMENSIONAL REDUCTION in QUANTUM GRAVITY† G. ’t Hooft 19 Oct 1993 [quote]With the request to write a short paper in honor of Abdus Salam I am given the opportunity to contemplate some very deep questions concerning the ultimate unification that may perhaps be achieved when all aspects of quantum theory, particle theory and general relativity are combined. [b]One of these questions is the dimensionality of space and time.[/b] The most direct and obvious physical cut-off does not come from non-renormalizability alone, but from the formation of microscopic black holes as soon as too much energy would be accumulated into too small a region. From a physical point of view it is the black holes that should provide for a natural cut-off all by themselves. This has been this author’s main subject of research for over a decade. A mathematically consistent formulation of the black hole cut-off turns out to be extremely difficult to find, and in this short note I will explain what may well be the main reason for this difficulty: nature is much more crazy at the Planck scale than even string theorists could have imagined.[/quote] Therefore, my approach... [B]Also, space-time has been spaghettified. Therefore, at the Schwarzschild radius space-time has been reduced to two dimensions. In two dimensions forces cannot be orthogonal.Therefore, the information which was contained in a 3D configuration has been spaghettified. The information has been transformed to two dimensions. It's all very elementary. Maybe that's why nobody has written a paper about it.[/B] ------------ [color=blue][B]24 April ‘Deterministic systems’- minimum length – QMLS[/b][/color] An understanding of minimum length is not limited to what I have been doing, Quantum mechanic uses ‘Deterministic systems’ which is equal to QMLS. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008v2.pdf [/url] The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics Gerard ’t Hooft 26 June 2006 Follow up work is in progress in the following papers. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2559v1.pdf [/url] Is there a relativistic nonlinear generalization of quantum mechanics? Hans-Thomas Elze 19 April 2007 [quote] Abstract. Yes, there is. – A new kind of gauge theory is introduced, where the minimal coupling and corresponding covariant derivatives are defined in the space of functions pertaining to the functional Schr¨odinger picture of a given field theory. While, for simplicity, we study the example of a U(1) symmetry, this kind of gauge theory can accommodate other symmetries as well. We consider the resulting relativistic nonlinear extension of quantum mechanics and show that it incorporates gravity in the (0+1)-dimensional limit, where it leads to the Schr¨odinger-Newton equations. Gravity is encoded here into a universal nonlinear extension of quantum theory. The probabilistic interpretation, i.e. Born’s rule, holds provided the underlying model has only dimensionless parameters.[/quote] [url]http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F0508095 [/url] A quantum field theory as emergent description of constrained supersymmetric classical dynamics Hans-Thomas Elze [quote]Deterministic dynamical models are discussed which can be described in quantum mechanical terms.[/quote] Also, presented at Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 35. no. 2A, June, 2005 [url]http://www.sbfisica.org.br/bjp/files/v35_343.pdf[/url] Determinism and a Supersymmetric Classical Model of Quantum Fields Hans-Thomas Elze [quote]Thus, ’t Hooft’s proposal to reconstruct quantum theory as emergent from an underlying deterministic system, is realized here for a field theory.[/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0605/0605154v1.pdf[/url] THE GAUGE SYMMETRY OF THE THIRD KIND AND QUANTUM MECHANICS AS AN INFRARED LIMIT HANS-THOMAS ELZE 16 May 2006/ Received April 19, 2007 [quote]We introduce functional degrees of freedom by a new gauge principle related to the phase of the wave functional. Thus, quantum mechanical systems are dissipatively embedded into a nonlinear classical dynamical structure. There is a necessary fundamental length, besides an entropy/area parameter, and standard couplings. For states that are sufficiently spread over configuration space, quantum field theory is recovered.[/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0609/0609011v1.pdf[/url] The Cosmological Constant Problem, an Inspiration for New Physics Stefan Nobbenhuis 04 Sept 2006 [quote]In this thesis we carefully study all known potential candidates for a solution, but conclude that so far none of the approaches gives a satisfactory solution. A symmetry would be the most elegant solution and we study a new symmetry under transformation to imaginary spacetime.[/quote] It appears that there are many ways of getting Beyond the Standard Model with minimum length: ‘Deterministic systems’, ‘Limiting Curvature Construction’, ‘Quantum Geometry’, and ‘QMLS’. Who will be the “math kid” that can combine all of the approaches? ( If I was a betting man, I would put my money on Gerard 't Hooft and group because they are already analyzing “structures”.) The final model should be able to produce the required dynamics that would give us a better understanding of the universe. ------------ [color=blue] 19 Fev 2008 [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0708.3550[/url] Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scales? Authors: Mikhail Shaposhnikov (Submitted on 27 Aug 2007) We argue that there may be no intermediate particle physics energy scale between the Planck mass $M_{Pl}\sim 10^{19}$ GeV and the electroweak scale $M_W \sim 100$ GeV. At the same time, the number of problems of the Standard Model (neutrino masses and oscillations, dark matter, baryon asymmetry of the Universe, strong CP-problem, gauge coupling unification, inflation) could find their solution at $M_{Pl}$ or $M_W$. The crucial experimental predictions of this point of view are outlined. ---------- [b]Note: The minimum length would be 10^-18.[/b][/color]

minimum length and "Black Holes"

[B]Quantum Minimum Length Structure , (QMLS), in a “Black Hole”[/B] I will be adding new entries as I get more info. Check back often. [i][color=blue] 15 May [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0312/0312059v3.pdf[/url] On the quantum width of a black hole horizon 14 April [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9806/9806079v1.pdf[/url] Loop quantum gravity and quanta of space: a primer Carlo Rovelli, Peush Upadhya [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9705/9705059v1.pdf[/url] The Immirzi parameter in quantum general relativity Carlo Rovelli 22 May 1997 -------------- 10 April [url]http://www.gravity.psu.edu/research/articles/solvaynet.pdf[/url] QUANTUM NATURE OF THE BIG BANG IN LOOP QUANTUM COSMOLOGY Abhay Ashtekar March 6, 2006 [quote]p. 3 …. Riemannian geometry is now quantized: there are well-defined operators corresponding to, say, lengths, areas and volumes, and all their eigenvalues are discrete. A new representation of the algebra generated by holonomies and triads becomes available.1 We have new quantum mechanics [9]. In loop quantum gravity, the standard Hamiltonian constraint is expressed in terms of the triads E and the curvature F of A. F can be expressed as a limit of the holonomy around a loop divided by the area enclosed by the loop, as the area shrinks to zero. Since there is no operator corresponding to A itself, in the quantum theory the limit does not exist. This is also a ramification of quantum geometry since area is quantized. Thus the quantum nature of geometry suggests that to obtain the quantum Hamiltonian constraint in quantum cosmology, [b]one should shrink the loop only till it has the minimum non-zero eigenvalue of area.[/b][/quote] This is where I differ in order to preserve the quantum minimum length. The loop should only be shrunk to the minimum area that can be enclosed by units of the minimum length. As a result there is a minimum length structure which is enclosing a singularity which I have labeled a void. [quote] the size of the step being dictated by the first non-zero area eigenvalue |i.e., the `area gap'| in quantum geometry. Qualitative differences from the Wheeler-DeWitt theory emerge precisely near the Big Bang singularity. In effect, gravity becomes repulsive near the singularity and there is a quantum bounce.[/quote] However, in my approach, there is no bounce. There is just the 2d structure. -------------- If you have not done so read the following paper. [b]Standard Theory SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1).…. String …. Have not done it. Martin Bojowald is the first to address the Inverse Square Law. [/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.1137v1.pdf [/url] Lattice refining loop quantum cosmology, anisotropic models and stability Martin Bojowald∗ 09 April 2007 ------------- 08 April [url]http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/singular_m07/ashtekar/ [/url] Quantum Physics Beyond Classical Singularities: Cosmological Models Prof. Abhay Ashtekar, Penn State & KITP Jan 12, 2007 look at slide # 18 & 19 “a” max approx. 23 planck length universes with “a” max. aprox. 25 planck length already semiclasical. Now go read my blog. From a Quantum Minimum Length Structure approach, I have arrives at “our universe”, having 24 units. We use to have a “Big Bang” with inflation and expansion … now we have a “Bounce” with expansion. However, if you do a realistic/semiclasical stop at 24 units you get the approach that I have been advocating which includes a new mechanism for explaining expansion. ------------- 22 March 2007 More info on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter ------------------- 13 March 2007 “minisuperspaces”. ------------- 11 March [b]More info on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter.[/b] ------------- 01 March [B]1. Some Implications of the Cosmological Constant to Fundamental Physics (Some consideration on scaling for G (Newton), and G (quantum) 2. Non-Metric Gravity I: Field Equations[/b] ----------- 28 Feb [b]Singularities and Quantum Gravity...[/b] ----------- 22 Feb [b]First Principle[/b] -------------- 21 Feb. [b]Quantum geometry and microscopic black hole entropy[/b] -------------- 20 Feb. [b]Spectroscopy of a canonically quantized horizon[/b] ------------ 19 feb. [b]Black Hole Entropy and the Problem of Universality[/b] ---------- [/i][/color] The area containing the energy of a “SPOT” is A/4. This is a 2d surface. What do you want to see? These are all the same. [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes_2.gif[/IMG] The RED is the location of the energy (6) when considering the Quantum Minimum Length Structure. I’m showing, (inside the circle), the possible allowed location of the energy of a “Black Hole”. If you wanted to see “Quantum Foam”, which is the spacetime structure, then you would need to add the Z-axis with the location of the energy as allowed by the “Quantum Minimum Length Structure” and then add a particle-wave going through it. My drawing skills are too poor to do that drawing. Jal [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/qmls_6.gif[/img] [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/qmls_6b.gif[/img] ------------- [i][color=blue] 19 Feb 2007.[/i][/color] [b]Must read the following.[/b] [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702094[/URL] [b]Black Hole Entropy and the Problem of Universality[/b] S. Carlip∗ 16 Feb 2007 The entropy is thus fixed by symmetry, independent of any details of the states being counted. So it is at least possible that results from two-dimensional conformal field theory may be relevant. Most important for our purposes, the BTZ black hole exhibits conventional thermodynamic behavior, with an entropy S = 2πr+/4¯hG (3.3) equal to a quarter of its horizon size. • we should look for “broken gauge invariance” to provide new degrees of freedom; • [b]we should at least hope for an effective two-dimensional picture,[/b] which would allow us to use the Cardy formula; • but we should look near the horizon for our new Goldstone-like modes. [b]Given a value a = 2, the entropy (5.10) is precisely 2π times the standard Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. A similar factor of 2π was found in [68]. I believe it arises because in radial quantization we are computing the entropy over “all times,” on an initial surface consisting of a circle of circumference 2π. [i][color=blue] My! … my!… just like the SPOT. What a coincidence? Therefore, we can get any size of a "Black Hole. All it needs is to be some multiplication (n) of 2 pi. The infalling particles/energy would upset the balance and it would need to rebalance itself to a new size (n) 2 pi. Nice mechanism for having hair. [/color][/i] [/b] ------------- [i][color=blue] 20 Feb 2007.[/i][/color] [url]http://tressful.blogspot.com/index.html[/url] Mohammad H. Ansari Jan 09 2007 [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0607081[/url] Spectroscopy of a canonically quantized horizon Mohammad H. Ansari p. 4 see picture FIG. 1: A quantized black hole FIG. 1: A quantized black hole The aim of this note is two fold: 1. Firstly, in Part (I) an unexpected symmetry in the complete spectrum of area is descried. In fact, this spectrum can be decomposed into a several evenly spaced sets, each with individual gap between levels. This leads to a reduced formula of area eigenvalues. In SU(2) version of loop quantum gravity the gaps scale as the square roots of ‘square-free’ numbers. In SO(3) version, they are the square roots of the discriminants of all possible quadratic positive definite forms. 2. Secondly, in Part (II) it is discussed that having applied the complete spectrum of area, a black hole radiates quantum mechanically a continuous spectrum. But the existence of the symmetry within the area spectrum results to a phenomenon called the quantum amplification effect. This generates several distinct bright lines in radiance spectrum. It gives the signature of quantum gravity observability in radiation from primordial black holes. Moreover, it challenges the isolated horizon picture conjecture, while makes [b]it possible to test loop quantum gravity with black hole radiation well above Planck scale. [i]With his presentation and a Quantum Minimum Length Structure there has to be a minimum length for a photon waves. The quantum minimum length does not have to be at the Planck Scale. Has Mohammad H. Ansari found the minimum length for a photon wave? Therefore, has he found the size of the area which is the size of the “SPOT”. Can the spectrum be reproduced without starting at the Planck scale? Does his calculation leave open the possibility of finding the quantum minimum length in our universe? I’m beginning to see the path to growing hair and to tap into a new source of energy.[/i] Check out his math in the appendix. [/b] The minimum frequency is called the fundamental frequency, (see formula) Other emissive frequencies are harmonics ωn, which are proportional to this fundamental frequency by an integer n, ωn = n̟. ------------- [i][color=blue] 21 Feb 2007.[/i][/color] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605014[/url] Quantum geometry and microscopic black hole entropy Alejandro Corichi,1, 2, ∗ Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo,3, † and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja4, ‡ 14 Aug 2006 The number of microscopic states that are consistent with a black hole of a given horizon area A0 are counted and the statistical entropy, as a function of the area, is obtained for A0 up to 550 ℓ2Pl. To this effect, we have found the frequency that best approximates the oscillations, and the frequency in areas gives an area scale of δAosc = 2.407 ℓ2Pl. It remains a challenge to find an explanation for this scale. The BI parameter that yields the desired agreement with S = A/4 is given by the value γ0 = 0.27398 Why does the Graph starts at an area of approx = 50 and entropy between 6 10? When I use QMLS I get an area of 24 units for a sphere. When I use 2.763953198 for a diameter I get 24 units of area for a sphere and 6 units of area for a circle. (Just the way that they are suppose to be for a 2d unit and minimum sphere.) From first principle I get the diameter and the Barbero-Immirzi parameter that is different by a factor of 10? Only whole units of area would be allowed for a “black hole” to generate a fundamental Frequency. If only whole units of QML are allowed then fractional area numbers would not be allowed. From the information that I provided any “math kid” can write a paper that points out which sizes of mini “black holes” that would be permitted. (Hurry!... CERN is waiting!) Example: Diameter..........Area sphere................Area circle 0.55279064............0.96 ....................0.240...... (not permitted) 0.2763953198.........0.24 ....................0.060...... (not permitted) 0.6909883............. 1.5 .....................0.375..... (not permitted) 1.3819766............. 6 .................... 1.5 ....... (not permitted) [b]2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... okay[/b] 5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... okay 11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... okay 22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... okay 44.22325115......6,144 ................1,536 ......... okay Simple jal ------------------- reference [url]http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog21/node11.html[/url] Quantization of area: the plot thickens John Baez (Barbero-Immirzi parameter) [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301122[/url] Kerr black hole quasinormal frequencies Shahar Hod 11 Sept 2006 ------------------------ If you want to learn more about “black holes". Read the following. [URL=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-10/title.html]http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html[/URL] Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications Abhay Ashtekar 15 December 2004 ashtekar @ gravity.psu.edu [QUOTE] 7.2 Quantum horizon geometry Since the eigenvalues are distinct in different -sectors, it immediately follows that these sectors provide unitarily inequivalent representations of the algebra of geometric operators; there is ‘super-selection’. Put differently, there is a quantization ambiguity, and which -sector is actually realized in Nature is an experimental question. One appropriate experiment, for example a measurement of the smallest non-zero area eigenvalue, would fix the value of and hence the quantum theory. [b][i]MY value is 10x bigger (2.763953198) and every area are equal. Radom areas and random sizes means that the speed of light would be random and not a constant.[/i][/b] Every further experiment - e.g., the measurement of higher eigenvalues or eigenvalues of other operators such as those corresponding to the volume of a region - would provide tests of the theory. … For agreement with semi-classical considerations in these cases, the leading contribution to entropy should be given by the Hawking-Bekenstein formula (87 ). This can happen only in the sector . [b][i] (2.763953198) is close enough[/i][/b] The quantum theory is now completely determined through this single constraint. [/QUOTE] The next challenge is to figure out what happens as the quantum “black hole’ goes between stable configurations (ie. 24 to 96). ------------------ [i][color=blue] 22 Feb 2007.[/i][/color] [URL=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-10/title.html]http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...4-10/title.html[/URL] 4.2 Mechanics of dynamical horizons The variations in the first law (36 ) represent infinitesimal changes in equilibrium states of horizon geometries. In the derivation of Section 4.1, these variations relate nearby but distinct space-times in each of which the horizon is in equilibrium. Therefore Equation (36 ) is interpreted as the first law in a passive form. Physically, it is perhaps the active form of the first law that is of more direct interest where a physical process, such as the one depicted in the right panel of Figure 1 causes a transition from one equilibrium state to a nearby one. Such a law can be established in the dynamical horizon framework. In fact, one can consider fully non-equilibrium situations, allowing physical processes in a given space-time in which there is a finite - rather than an infinitesimal - change in the state of the horizon. 4.3 Passage of dynamical horizons to equilibrium A priori therefore, it is not at all clear that angular momentum and mass would join smoothly if the transition occurs at a finite time. However, a detailed analysis shows that the two sets of notions in fact agree. --------------------- [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/barbero_immirzi2.gif[/img] [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/barbero_immirzi_parameter.gif [/img] For the quantum “black hole” to expands it must take in a multiple of quantas of energy then the horizon expands to a new equilibrium with the smallest non-zero area eigenvalue. (angular momentum and mass) There would be the following number of quantas of energy for each stable horizons. Diameter..........Area sphere..........Area circle … # quantas ….. Area ratio c/s [b]2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... 6 ……. ¼ [/b] 5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... 24 ……. ¼ 11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... 96 ……. ¼ 22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... 384 ……. ¼ 44.22325115..... 6,144 ............. 1,536 ......... 1,536 ……... ¼ 88.44645 …….. 24,576 ………….... 6,144 ……. 6,144 ...…… ¼ 176.8929 ……. 98,304 …………... 24,576 ….. 24,576 ……... ¼ Why does all of the energy show up on the surface area? Why is the ratio always ¼ for a stable horizon? [b]What else does the quantum minimum length structure produce?[/b] Who is playing with numerology? Me? Or the scientists? If nobody....... then you are looking at [b] a First Principle[/b] ------------------------ [B]Quantum Minimum Length Structure , (QMLS), The area containing the energy of a “SPOT” is A/4. This is a 2d surface. What do you want to see? These are all the same.[/B] [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes_2.gif[/IMG] ------------------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0211076[/url] Quasinormal Modes, the Area Spectrum, and Black Hole Entropy Olaf Dreyer_ Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 35 King Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada (Dated: May 24, 2006) The results of canonical quantum gravity concerning geometric operators and black hole entropy are beset by an ambiguity labelled by the Immirzi parameter. We use a result from classical gravity concerning the quasinormal mode spectrum of a black hole to fix this parameter in a new way. --------------- [i][color=blue] 28 Feb 2007.[/i][/color] [B]SINGULARITIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE WITH THE QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE.[/B] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702144 [/url] Singularities and Quantum Gravity Martin Bojowald 27 Feb 2007 Another step forward. Martin Bojowald is encouraging people to develop different simple models in the hope of discovering some partial answers that could be applied to a final model. [quote] As we saw, symmetric models allow explicit investigations of many properties expected for singularities. It is important to keep a wide view of all types of characteristic models since any given model by itself may be too special as one can see it in isotropy. Still, [b]there may always be properties not seen so far which may become relevant.[/b] Generalizations to less symmetric models have thus presented many non-trivial tests of the whole framework which so far were all passed successfully. A further test is the [b]independence of the mechanism[/b] from details of the matter Hamiltonian, implying that we are dealing with a pure quantum geometry effect. Even curvature couplings, which can arise for non-minimally coupled scalar fields, do not change the mechanism [93] although at first the classical structure seems to be quite different from that in the absence of curvature couplings. The deep quantum picture crucially relies on spatial discreteness and dynamical equations for a wave function. [/quote] Sounds like he’s on the same wavelength as Baez. Martin Bojowald proposes a model … “quantum hyperbolicity”. NOTE: p. 31 FIGURE 15. Effective curvature potential in a Bianchi IX model THERE ARE 12 “nodes” The problem, DYNAMICS, …. is to have those 12 “nodes” do their dancing in 3d and figure out which of those configurations mean something and how they relate to the triads (12). My model has 12 “nodes” which can take 144 positions or 12 patterns with plenty of room to insert “particles”. I want you to think of the “model” as a mixing machine; A cement mixed, bread mixer, washing machine, egg beater, what ever you are familiar with. It has been determined that the mixer has 6 “paddles” (by QMLS and other means) when treated as being 2d and 12 paddles when treated as being 3d. (again, by QMLS and other means) The mixer will operate in a simple cyclic pattern. We don’t know what will be the cycle because we don’t know what kind of mixer that we have. The only time that we can tell that the mixer is operating is when there is something in it. (a particle) You then try to deduct what is the cycle of the mixing machine (the model) from the motion of the particles. There are no guarantees that from your observations of the particles, that you will be able to determine how your mixing machine is operating. The particles will take on their own independent cyclic patterns and properties. That is the problem of DYNAMICS….Determining which properties belong to the mixing machine and which properties belong to the particles. It should not be assumed that everything caused by the mixing machine (model) or that everything is property of the particles. (ie. Mass, gravity, Planck Scale) The answers will be found with the right model and the right dynamics. ------------- [i][color=blue] 01 March2007[/i][/color] [b]Some consideration on scaling for G (Newton), and G (quantum)[/b] (deformed (or doubly, as it has been called) special relativity-(DSR)) [url]http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/al/Aldrovandi/4[/url] R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltrán Almeida and J. G. Pereira 12 Feb 2007 …the de Sitter spacetime is transitive under a combination of translations and proper conformal transformations. The relative importance of each one of these transformations is determined by the value of the length parameter l, that is, by the value of the cosmological constant. The first notion of distance is that related to translations, which become the dominant part of the dS transitivity generators for small values of . The second notion of distance is that related to the proper conformal transformation. For small values of , the de Sitter length parameter l is large, and the modifications in the energy-momentum relation will be small. Up to first order in , we get (se formula) In the limit of a vanishing cosmological constant, the ordinary notions of energy and momentum are recovered, and the de Sitter relativity reduces to the ordinary special relativity, in which the Poincaré symmetry is exact. The energy momentum relation, in this case, reduces to the usual expression (see formula) 6. FINAL REMARKS For example, ordinary special relativity, which is based on the Poincaré group, will no longer be true, and must be replaced by a new special relativity based on the de Sitter group. The physical tangent space at each point of any spacetime will consequently be converted into an osculating de Sitter spacetime. Due to the fact that the de Sitter spacetime is transitive under a combination of translation and proper conformal transformations, the de Sitter special relativity can be viewed as made up of two different relativities: the usual one, related to translations, and a conformal one, related to proper conformal transformations. [b]There are more remarks which do not conflict with my model. Read them…you will get a surprise. And.. What is making this happen? It’s the Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS). I agree with the paper that the (QMLS) might be detectable at the next round of experiments at CERN.[/b] Other papers by R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltrán Almeida and J. G. Pereira. [url]http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/al/Aldrovandi[/url] -------------- [b]Something simple ...Some consideration on scaling for G (Newton), and G (quantum)[/b] [url]http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/online/Html/Seminars/Fall1998/Krasnov/Slides/s01.html[/url] Kirill Krasnov - What We Know and Don't Know About Quantum Black Holes (Slide 1 of 17) [b]Something harder to understand.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703002[/url] Non-Metric Gravity I: Field Equations Kirill Krasnov _ 01 March 2007 As curvature has dimensions 1/L, L being length, such terms are dimensionless. To give them the dimension M�, M being mass, required from the action one has to multiply these terms by a dimensionfull parameter – the Planck constant ~. Thus, the terms in the quantum corrected action that are of second order in curvature have a multiple of ~ in front of them and thus are quantum corrections. This power of ~ agrees with the fact that these terms arise at one loop order of perturbation theory. Containing a prefactor of ~, these terms should be ignored when considering the classical gravity theory, as this is obtained via ~ → 0 limit. In the case of (3) the field becomes related to the curvature only on-shell, and the action is second-order for any choice of the function φ. Now, to determine whether the φ-term in the action (3) is a classically important term or just a quantum correction one must ask whether l∗ goes to zero when ~ → 0. In the usual metric based scheme l∗ ∼ lp, the Planck length and does go to zero in the classical limit. The fact that (3) is second-order in derivatives suggests that this does not have to happen in this theory and that l∗ may remain finite even when ~ is sent to zero. What we think makes this purely metric interpretation misleading are two things: (i) the metric (or the tetrad) that is obtained in the process of solving the equations for B is defined only up to a conformal factor. The reason for this is that in the general case of non-vanishing φ it is a matter of choice how to normalize the tetrad one-forms, there is no canonical normalization anymore. [b] It would be interesting to see what would happen if the QMLS was included in his approach.[/b] ------------- [i][color=blue] 11 March2007[/i][/color] [b]More info on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703058[/url] Asymptotic quasinormal modes of scalar field in a gravity’s rainbow Cheng-Zhou Liu and Jian-Yang Zhu 08 March 2007 Abstract In the context of a gravity’s rainbow, the asymptotic quasinormal modes of the scalar perturbation in the quantum modified Schwarzschild black holes are investigated. By using the monodromy method, we calculated and obtained the asymptotic quasinormal frequencies, which are dominated not only by the mass parameter of the spacetime, but also by the energy functions from the modified dispersion relations. However, the real parts of the asymptotic quasinormal modes is still TH ln 3, which is consistent with Hod’s conjecture. In addition, for the quantum corrected black hole, the area spacing is calculated and the result is independent of the energy functions, in spite of the area itself is energy dependence. And that, by relating the area spectrum to loop quantum gravity, the Barbero-Immirzi parameter is given and it remains the same as from the usual black hole. -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703074[/url] Three-geometry and reformulation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation Chopin Soo Department of Physics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan 17 March 2007 Abstract. A reformulation of theWheeler-DeWitt equation which highlights the role of gauge-invariant three-geometry elements is presented. It is noted that the classical super-Hamiltonian of four-dimensional gravity as simplified by Ashtekar through the use of gauge potential and densitized triad variables can furthermore be succinctly expressed as a vanishing Poisson bracket involving three-geometry elements. This is discussed in the general setting of the Barbero extension of the theory with arbitrary [b]non-vanishing value of the Immirzi parameter, [i](note: Does not go to zero)[/i][b] and when a cosmological constant is also present. A proposed quantum constraint of density weight two which is polynomial in the basic conjugate variables is also demonstrated to correspond to a precise simple ordering of the operators, and may thus help to resolve the factor ordering ambiguity in the extrapolation from classical to quantum gravity. Alternative expression of a density weight one quantum constraint which may be more useful in the spin network context is also discussed, but this constraint is non-polynomial and is not motivated by factor ordering. The article also highlights the fact that while the volume operator has become a preeminient object in the current manifestation of loop quantum gravity, the volume element and the Chern-Simons functional can be of equal significance, and need not be mutually exclusive. Both these fundamental objects appear explicitly in the reformulation of the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint. ------------------- [i][color=blue] 22 March 2007[/i][/color] [b]More info on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703116[/url] Loop quantum gravity and Planck-size black hole entropy Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja 22 March 2007 ----------------- [i][color=blue] 13 March2007[/i][/color] “minisuperspaces” Is there a way to combine “Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS)”, M-Theory and LQG? There is an approach “minisuperspace”. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703057[/url] Existence of generalized Kodama quantum states. III. A new approach to finite, full quantum gravity. Eyo Eyo Ita III March 8, 2007 Also, check out Stefano Ansoldi to see more similarities when using “minisuperspace”.? [url]http://www-dft.ts.infn.it/~ansoldi/Research/PastResearchSummary.html[/url] Past Research Activity of Stefano Ansoldi In the first case, a great advantage of Eguchi's formulation of string dynamics is that it treats the extended object as a whole dynamical entity, without focusing on its constituents (points). The motion of the object can then be described in what is called loop space. In particular we worked on giving a path-integral formulation of string dynamics a la Eguchi [2], showing that the quantum dynamics can be described in terms of fractal properties of the world-sheet [6] and interpreting in terms of these aspects the small-scale space-time structure, whose microscopic constituents are branes, instead of points [7]. [url]http://www-dft.ts.infn.it/~ansoldi/Research/LoopQuantumMechanics/HTML/index.html[/url] Loop Quantum Mechanics and the Fractal Structure of Quantum Spacetime 5.1 Correspondence Principle, Uncertainty Principle and the Fractalization of Quantum Spacetime If spacetime is a derived concept, then is seems natural to ask, ``what is the main property of the fuzzy stuff, let us call it quantum spacetime, that replaces the smoothness of the classical spacetime manifold, and what is the scale of distance at which the transition takes place?''. Remarkably, the celebrated Planck length represents a very near miss as far as the scale of distance is concerned. The new source of fuzziness comes from string theory, specifically from the introduction of the new fundamental constant which determines the tension of the string. Thus, at scales comparable to , spacetime becomes fuzzy, even in the absence of conventional quantum effects ( ). While the exact nature of this fuzziness is unclear, it manifests itself in a new form of Heisenberg's principle, which now depends on both and . Thus, in Witten's words, while ``a proper theoretical framework for the [new] uncertainty principle has not yet emerged, ...the natural framework of the [string] theory may eventually prove to be inherently quantum mechanical.''. That new quantum mechanical framework may well constitute the core of the yet undiscovered -Theory, and the non perturbative functional quantum mechanics of string loops that we have developed in recent years may well represent a first step on the long road toward a matrix formulation of it. If this is the case, a challenging testing ground is provided by the central issue of the structure of quantum spacetime. This question was analyzed in Ref. [6] and we limit ourselves, in the remainder of this subsection, to a brief elaboration of the arguments presented there. The main point to keep in mind, is the already mentioned analogy between ``loop quantum mechanics'' and the ordinary quantum mechanics of point particles. That analogy is especially evident in terms of the new areal variables, namely, the spacelike area enclosed by the string loop, given by Eq. (18), and the timelike, proper area of the string manifold, given by Eq. (4). With that choice of dynamical variables, the reparametrized formulation of the Schild action principle leads to the classical energy per unit length conservation . Then, the loop wave equation can be immediately written down by translating this conservation law in the quantum language through the Correspondence Principle ….we insist in maintaining the ``wholeness'' of the string and consider exact solutions in loop space, or adopt a minisuperspace approximation quantizing only one, or few oscillation modes, freezing all the other (infinite) ones. In the first case, it is possible to get exact ``free'' solutions, such as the plane wave. [b]The central result that follows from the above equations, is that the classical world-sheet of a string, a smooth manifold of topological dimension two, turns into a fractal object with Hausdorff dimension three as a consequence of the quantum areal fluctuations of the string loop [6].[/b] [i][color=blue] [b] THIS IS WHERE EVERYTHING CAN BE JOINED TOGETHER[/B][/i][/color] Hence, quantum string dynamics can be described in terms of a fluctuating Riemannian -surface only when the observing apparatus is characterized by a low resolution power. As smaller and smaller areas are approached, the graininess of the world-sheet becomes manifest. Then a sort of de-compactification occurs, in the sense that the thickness of the string history comes into play, and the ``world-surface'' is literally fuzzy to the extent that its Hausdorff dimension can be anything between its topological value of two and its limiting fractal value of three. 5.2 Superconductivity and Quantum Spacetime Quantum strings, or more generally branes of various kind, are currently viewed as the fundamental constituents of everything: not only every matter particle or gauge boson must be derived from the string vibration spectrum, but [b]spacetime itself is built out of them.[/b] At the same time, the functional approach leads to a precise interpretation of the fuzziness of the underlying quantum spacetime in the following sense: when the resolution of the detecting apparatus is smaller than a particle DeBroglie wavelength, then the particle quantum trajectory behaves as a fractal curve of Hausdorff dimension . Similarly we have concluded on the basis of the ``shape uncertainty principle'' that the Hausdorff dimension of a quantum string world-sheet is , and that two distinct phases (smooth and fractal phase) exist above and below the loop DeBroglie area. Now, if particle world-lines and string world-sheets behave as fractal objects at small scales of distance, so does the world-history of a generic -brane including spacetime itself [19], and we are led to the general expectation that a new kind of fractal geometry may provide an effective dynamical arena for physical phenomena near the string or Planck scale in the same way that a smooth Riemannian geometry provides an effective dynamical arena or physical phenomena at large distance scales. ----------------- [i][color=blue] [b] THERE IS NO NEED TO INVENT MORE THAN TWO DIMENSIONS OR TO COMPACT THEM AT THE PLANCK SCALE TO GET THE RESULTS THAT WE OBSERVE .... A 3D UNIVERSE.[/B][/i][/color] --------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric [/url] [quote]The Schwarzschild solution appears to have singularities at r = 0 and r = rs; some of the metric components blow up at these radii. Since the Schwarzschild metric is only expected to be valid for radii larger than the radius R of the gravitating body, there is no problem as long as R > rs. For ordinary stars and planets this is always the case. For example, the radius of the Sun is approximately 700,000 km, while its Schwarzschild radius is only 3 km. One might naturally wonder what happens when the radius R becomes less than or equal to the Schwarzschild radius rs. It turns out that the Schwarzschild solution still makes sense in this case, although it has some rather odd properties. [b]The apparent singularity at r = rs is an illusion; it is an example of what is called a coordinate singularity. As the name implies, the singularity arises from a bad choice of coordinates. By choosing another set of suitable coordinates one can show that the metric is well-defined at the Schwarzschild radius.[/b][/quote] [b]“The apparent singularity at r = rs is an illusion;”. No, this is the wrong thing to do. By chosing another coordinate it is equivalent to avoiding facing the reality that this is the 2d structure.[/b] --------------- [color=blue][B] 15 May On the quantum width of a black hole horizon [/b][/color] [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0312/0312059v3.pdf [/url] On the quantum width of a black hole horizon Donald Marolf 05 jan 2004 Some time ago, it was argued by Sorkin [13] that one should cut-off the entropy of the thermal atmosphere at an even larger distance from the black hole horizon. Quantum fluctuations within Lc of the classical horizon are then perhaps better described as fluctuations of the black hole itself, and may plausibly be assumed to already be included in the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole. (Though of course the details of how or whether the full entropy is reflected in a spacetime description remains unclear.) It is amusing to note that for Schwarzschild black holes in 3+1 dimensions Lc is only just below nuclear length scales for astrophysical black holes and begins to approach atomic length scales for the largest known supermassive black holes. [b]Note: Lc is the quantum minimum length …. 10^-18 (below nuclear length scales) …. 10^-16 H-dibaryon sphere (to approach atomic length scales)[/b] ---------------

MICRO LENSING REVEALS THE QUANTUM STRUCTURE O

MICRO LENSING REVEALS THE QUANTUM STRUCTURE OF SPACETIME. This could lead to a way to combine “Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS)”, M-Theory and LQG and arrive at a theory Beyond the Standard Model? [i][color=blue][B]-------- 17 March more references[/b] ---------- [/i][/color] Here are some pictures that are better than mine. First, [b]the triangle, 2d [/b] then [b]the 3-Dimensional star (or dual tetrahedron)[/b] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics [/url] One of Jenny's more complex experiments include a spherical vibrating water droplet containing fine particles, these particles then formed into a 3-Dimensional star (or dual) tetrahedron shape with surrounding circles as shown below. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Cymatics%2Ctriangle.jpg [/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Cymatics%2Ccomplex.jpg[/IMG] You might want to read the following [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory [/url] System Dynamics An aspect of systems theory, system dynamics, is a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The basis of the method is the recognition that the structure of any system — the many circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components — is often just as important in determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. Examples are chaos theory and social dynamics. It is also claimed that, because there are often properties-of-the-whole which cannot be found among the properties-of-the-elements, in some cases the behavior of the whole cannot be explained in terms of the behavior of the parts. An example is the properties of these letters which when considered together can give rise to meaning which does not exist in the letters by themselves. This further explains the integration of tools, like language, as a more parsimonious process in the human application of easiest path adaptability through interconnected systems. [i][color=blue][B]-------- 17 March more references[/b] ---------- [/i][/color] [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY&mode=related&search= [/URL] resonance [URL]http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=929540893[/URL] Cymatics [URL]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795869048702157810[/URL] Cymatics --------------- Browse the following site (IT'S A SIMILAR APPROACH TO MINE) [URL]http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp [/URL] The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end --------------

Can CERN detect the QMLS?-YES

Can CERN detect the QMLS?-YES It will be identified as Black Holes or Extra Dimensions --------------- [color=blue][B] 22 April 2007 ‘Limiting Curvature Construction’[/b][/color] ----------------------- [url]http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/EXOTICS/XDim/ExtraDimensions.htm [/url] Extra Dimensions & black holes [url]https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/Atlas/BlackHoleCSCNoteWikiPage [/url] BlackHoleCSCNoteWikiPage [url]http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/681502 [/url] Study of Black Holes with the ATLAS detector at the LHC [url]http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/hep-ph/0411/0411095.pdf [/url] J. Tanaka1,†, T. Yamamura2, S. Asai1, J. Kanzaki 05 Nov 2004 [quote]Abstract We evaluate the potential of the ATLAS detector for discovering black holes produced at the LHC, as predicted in models with large extra dimensions where quantum gravity is at the TeV scale. We assume that black holes decay by Hawking evaporation to all Standard Model particles democratically. We comment on the possibility to estimate the Planck scale. Black holes will be produced at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) if the fundamental Planck scale is of order a TeV. Assuming that the fundamental Planck scale MP is the same as the electroweak scale (∼1 TeV), the case n = 1 yields a very large R (∼ 1013 cm), ruled out by experiments. For n ≥ 2, the size of R is less than ∼ 10−2 cm, which does not contradict results of gravitational experiments. [/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205284[/url] p-brane production in Fat brane or Universal extra dimension scenario Kingman Cheung_ National Center for Theoretical Sciences, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. Chung-Hsien Chou† Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 115, R.O.C. (Dated: March 23, 2007) also 24 may 2002 ??? [quote]Trans-Planckian objects including black holes (BH) recently receive a lot of attentions in models of large extra dimensions. In an attractive model of large extra dimensions or TeV quantum gravity (ADD model) [1], the fundamental Planck scale can be as low as a few TeV. This is made possible by confining the SM particles on a 3-brane (using the idea of D-branes in Type I or II string theory), while gravity is free to propagate in all dimensions. The observed Planck scale (∼ 1019 GeV) is then a derived quantity. Extensive phenomenological studies have been carried out in past few years. Signatures for the ADD model can be divided into two categories: sub-Planckian and trans-Planckian. The former is the one that was studied extensively, while the latter just recently receives more attentions, especially, black hole production in hadronic collisions. In models of large extra dimensions, the properties of black holes are modified and interesting signatures emerge [2, 3, 4]. The fact that the fundamental Planck scale is as low as TeV also opens up an interesting possibility of producing a large number of black holes at collider experiments (e.g. LHC) To ensure the validity of the above classical description of BH [9, 10, 11], the entropy must be sufficiently large, of order 25 or so. In Ref. [9, 10, 11] it was shown that when MBH/MD >∼ 5, the entropy SBH >∼ 25. Therefore, to avoid getting into the nonperturbative regime of the BH and to ensure the semi-classical validity, we restrict the mass of the BH to be MBH ≥ 5MD. BH production is expected when the colliding partons with a center-of- mass energy √ˆs >∼ MBH pass within a distance less than RBH. A black hole of mass MBH is formed and the rest of energy, if there is, is radiated as ordinary SM particles. [/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0702187[/url] Black Holes at LHC? Ben Koch, Marcus Bleicher and Horst St¨ocker 19 Feb 2007 [quote]Abstract. Strategies for identifying speculative mini black hole events (due to large extra dimensions) at future colliders are reviewed. [/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0702078[/url] Signatures of Spherical Compactification at the LHC Hooman Davoudiasl1, ∗ and Thomas G. Rizzo†2, ‡ 07 Feb 2007 [quote]Abstract TeV-scale extra dimensions may play an important role in electroweak or supersymmetry breaking. We examine the phenomenology of such dimensions, compactified on a sphere Sn, n ≥ 2, and show that they possess distinct features and signatures. INTRODUCTION A great deal of attention has been devoted to the theoretical development of models with extra dimensions over the past several years. Motivated by a desire to explain the gauge hierarchy problem in the Standard Model (SM), various scenarios with one or more extra dimensions have been proposed. These models generally give rise to new phenomena not far above the weak scale. Nearly all cases that have been studied are endowed with extra dimensions that are: (1) large and toroidal, or (2) TeV-scale and toroidal, or (3) a slice of AdS5. TeV-scale phenomenology of compactification on a manifold with positive constant curvature, namely a sphere, has so far received very little attention; for some work in this direction see Refs. [2, 3]. In this section, we present our assumed physical setup and the relevant formalism that we will employ in obtaining at our results. We will consider a spacetime with D = 4+n+m, n ≥ 2, dimensions. The n extra dimensions are compactified on a sphere Sn of radius R. The other m extra dimensions, if they exist, are assumed to be compactified on scales, r, which are in general distinct from R. [/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0502005[/url] Physics Beyond the Standard Model: Exotic Leptons and Black Holes at Future Colliders Christopher Michael Harris 01 Feb 2005 [quote]The question of how likely it is that any particular model for new physics is realized in nature is inevitably impossible to quantify. Every physicist has their own prejudices and in general supersymmetric models seem to be the favoured option. Extra dimension models are ‘wacky’ enough to attract the attention of the popular science media and are quickly dismissed by some physicists. However, as outlined in Chapter 1, they can be well motivated theoretically. Almost all high-energy physicists are convinced that the LHC will discover new physics of some kind. Leaving aside all the theoretical arguments, it would be unprecedented in the history of the field if the order-of-magnitude increase in available energy did not reveal something new. It may well be that nature surprises us and re veals physics that nobody has so far suggested. Even if extra dimensions do exist the compactification scheme may make the physics much more complicated than the simple cases discussed here. With half a decade still to wait before CERN’s Large Hadron Collider has produced a substantial amount of data, there is good reason for theorists to continue investigating these models, and refining and extending their phenomenological studies. [/quote] You can find out what is The Quantum Minimum Length Structure (QMLS) by reading the other entries in my blog. -------------- [url]http://freevideolectures.com/physics[/url] Physics Beyond the Standard Model When you get to the part where they discuss 4 stacks of D-branes intersecting together (p.34) you can imagine that the “SPOT” is a simplified example of these strings interacting among themselves. In this case, the SPOT is a 2d slice of the torus. As a result you get the Standard Model, SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). The dynamics of these intersecting D-branes can be analysed by a variety of approaches. jal ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0607/0607165v3.pdf[/url] Mini Black Holes in the first year of the LHC Discovery Through Di-Jet Suppression, Mono-Jet Emission and ionising tracks in ALICE H. St¨ocker 24 July 2006 ----------- [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0703062[/url] How to Create Black Holes on Earth? Marcus Bleicher 06 March 2007 ------------ [color=blue][B]22 April 2007 ‘Limiting Curvature Construction’[/b][/color] Using two dimensions to get at an understanding of minimum length is not limited to what I have been doing. Since, quantum black holes are a possibilities at CERN then these approaches need to be revisited and updated. [url]http://br.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9405/9405004v2.pdf [/url] Singularity-Free Two Dimensional Cosmologies R. Moessner and M. Trodden 03 Nov 1994 [quote]We present a class of theories of two dimensional gravity which admits homogeneous and isotropic solutions that are nonsingular and asymptotically approach a FRW matter dominated universe at late times. These models are generalizations of two dimensional dilaton gravity and both vacuum solutions and those including conformally coupled matter are investigated. In each case our construction leads to an inflationary stage driven by the gravitational sector. Our work comprises a simple example of the ‘Nonsingular Universe’ constructions of ref. [/quote] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9305111[/url] A Nonsingular Two Dimensional Black Hole M. Trodden, V.F. Mukhanov, R.H. Brandenberger 22 May 1993 [quote]Abstract We construct a model of gravity in 1+1 spacetime dimensions in which the solutions approach the Schwarzschild metric at large r and de Sitter space far inside the horizon. Our model may be viewed as a two dimensional application of the ‘Limiting Curvature Construction’ of reference[6]. [/quote] --------------- [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F9303001[/url] A COSMOLOGICAL THEORY WITHOUT SINGULARITIES R. Brandenberger , V. Mukhanov and A. Sornborger 01 march 1993 [quote]Abstract A theory of gravitation is constructed in which all homogeneous and isotropic solutions are nonsingular, and in which all curvature invariants are bounded. All solutions for which curvature invariants approach their limiting values approach de Sitter space. The action for this theory is obtained by a higher derivative modification of Einstein’s theory. We expect that our model can easily be generalized to solve the singularity problem also for anisotropic cosmologies. [/quote] -------------------- [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F0210016[/url] Hawking radiation of nonsingular black holes in two dimensions D. A. Easson 19 Feb 2003/pub 03 May 2006 [quote]In this letter we study the process of Hawking radiation of a black hole assuming the existence of a limiting physical curvature scale. The particular model is constructed using the Limiting Curvature Hypothesis (LCH) and in the context of two-dimensional dilaton gravity. The black hole solution exhibits properties of the standard Schwarzschild solution at large values of the radial coordinate. However, near the center, the black hole is nonsingular and the metric becomes that of de Sitter spacetime. The Hawking temperature is calculated using the method of complex paths. We find that such black holes radiate eternally and never completely evaporate. [b]The final state is an eternally radiating relic, near the fundamental scale, [i]which should make a viable dark matter candidate.[/i] We briefly comment on the black hole information loss problem and the production of such black holes in collider experiments.[/b] ]Our classical intuition concerning the creation of black holes in the lab may require refinement. (This is indicated by the above result). The resulting miniature black holes could play an important role as dark matter candidates. The large interior core contains the missing information which may be accessed only by travelling into the black hole. In [18] it was argued that the size of the universe inside the black hole is infinite. [/quote] If you have read the above papers you will note that they lack a 2d structure, which I have supplied from first principle. If you apply a “sharp razor” you will used the QMLS as an answer. See my blog. -------------- [url][url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608034 [/url] The Accelerating Universe and a Limiting Curvature Proposal Damien A. Easson 01 Aug 2006 [quote]Whatever is responsible for the current acceleration may arise from some completely new physical principle. This is the possibility we consider in this paper. Our goal is to construct a toy model that represents a late-time accelerating Universe using a new, possibly fundamental, principle. As our guiding principle, we hypothesize the existence of a minimal curvature scale in gravity. …. we remain optimistic that an experimentally and theoretically viable model based on the minimal curvature construction can be discovered. [/quote] Yes, It’s called QMLS.

HOW TO MAKE YOUR UNIVERSE MODEL EXPAND

HOW TO MAKE YOUR UNIVERSE MODEL EXPAND [color=blue][B]insert: 18 may note: Are you having trouble including minimum length? See [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/blogs/jal-58039/minimum-length-805/[/url] minimum length, to see how to get started 21 May: Check out this model making approach [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4011[/url] Counting BPS Solitons and Applications Authors: Kazutoshi Ohta (Submitted on 22 Oct 2007) [/b][/color] In the 1950’s the expanding universe model was rescued by applying the concept of the phase change of water freezing and thereby getting an inflationary phase for the universe. They have been working on the math for the last 50 years. Recently, the observations were made that the universe is expanding faster (accelerating) and that there was DARK ENERGY filling the universe. I pointed out in “TOMORROWS’ BIG BANG” that the amount of dark energy/matter was “coincidently” in the same range as sphere packing. -------- A new concept needs to be found to try to see if it can be made to agree with the observations. Of course, YOUR MODEL, would need to follow/obey the same “rules”. ===== Expansion in the 3rd dimension requires that it follows the INVERSE SQUARE LAW. It also requires that all units be the same size or have a minimum length. ====== . Since the bounce has a minimum size of 24 units we can start with densest packing of spheres. [1] (Densest packing is 12 spheres of equal sizes kissing (touching) a 13th sphere in the center; Hex. or cubic packing) Therefore, hex. packing has a top row of 3 spheres, center row with 6 spheres around a center sphere, and bottom row with 3 spheres. If the spheres are all 1 unit in diameter, then we can draw a large sphere around the 12 spheres and it will have a diameter of 3 units. This larger sphere would not include 6 more spheres of one unit. (3 in the top layer and 3 in the bottom layer) If we project the diameter of those inner 12 spheres to the surface of the larger sphere then they will make circles of densest packing on that surface. This is also known as Tammes' problem. [2, 3]Those 12 circles also represent the diameter of 12 spheres with a diameter of one unit that are situated around that larger sphere. We can repeat the exercise and make another sphere around those spheres and the diameter of that exterior sphere will be 5 units. The 12 spheres would be 1/5 the diameter of this larger sphere. The next sphere will have a diameter of 7 units. The 12 spheres would be 1/7 the diameter of this larger sphere. etc. Therefore, the radius of the exterior sphere is increasing by one unit every time we make an expansion step. All models must be able to answer the following question. Where are the additional units coming from to fill the available spaces of the expanding spheres? If the increase of the radius/diameter is done slow enough then the additional units, that are needed to fill the expanding sphere, will have time to get into a perfect hex. pattern before the next expansion step. [2] Each step for the next largest sphere is predetermined by the size of the units if there is to be hex. packing with no voids. There is no NEW math or physic proposed for this to happen in 3d. If your model starts with 2d surfaces then you must include another math process to make the 2d surfaces organize in a sphere.[4, 5, 6, 7, 8] Have fun! ========== The following citations should be sufficient for the more advanced seekers. [1] [url]http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/school/articles/me100.html[/url] Distributing points on the sphere ------------- [2] [url]http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/lub/index.html[/url] Spontaneous Patterns in Disk Packings ----------- [3] [url]http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/pap.htm[/url] Visual Mathematics Papers ======== [4] [url]http://www.enginemonitoring.org/illum/illum.html[/url] Optimal illumination of a sphere placement problems of points on a sphere. ------------ [5] [url]http://www.buddenbooks.com/jb/pack/sphere/toggles7.pdf[/url] Multiplicity and Symmetry Breaking in (Conjectured) Densest Packings of Congruent Circles on a Sphere ------------ [6] [url]http://www.buddenbooks.com/jb/pack/sphere/intro.htm[/url] Packing Equal Circles on a Sphere (spherical codes) ------- [7] [url]http://www.buddenbooks.com/jb/pack/circle/snakes.htm[/url] Spiral Packings of Circles in Circles --------- [8] [url]http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/cirincir/[/url] Circles in Circles =====

MINI_BLACK_HOLES

[color=blue][B] 28 Aug. [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9503/9503024v2.pdf [/url] Lectures on (2+1)-Dimensional Gravity S. Carlip 18 March 1995 ---------- 21 May Light Hadron Spectrum and Quark Masses from Quenched Lattice QCD [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-lat/pdf/0206/0206009v1.pdf [/url] They are using plaquettes. In my approach there is a 10% that needs explanation. You decide if it's applicable to their work. ------------ 09 May 2007 H dibaryon -------------- [/b][/color] Great pictures from THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY AUSTRALIA [URL]http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/school/articles/me100.html[/URL] [B]Distributing points on the sphere[/B] "The unit sphere S2 in three dimensions is the set of all points x in R3 the distance |x| = 1 from the origin. Here we are considering just the surface of the sphere, not its interior. In contrast to the circle, it is not possible to equally distribute points on the sphere except in a few special cases (the platonic solids illustrated below). Instead many different criteria are used to distribute points, including minimum energy, covering, packing, Voronoi cells, volume of their convex hull, maximum determinant, cubature weights and norms of the Lagrange polynomials. These different criteria are illustrated in the following images, all based on a set of 100 points which are at least very close to minimizing the potential energy." [IMG]http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/images/user/sphere/me100im3.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~rsw/Sphere/Extremal/md50w.jpg [/IMG] In a mini black hole all of the forces are so great that there are no defects in the sphere. To be stable, it is easy to see that all of the quantum areas must all be the same and be in their exact positions with no defects. [B]I have already calculated some stable configurations by using QMLS and the "Barbero-Immirzi parameter".[/B] You might also want to read [URL]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0609/0609122v2.pdf [/URL] Black hole entropy quantization Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo D´ıaz-Polo, and Enrique Fern´andez-Borja Updated 01 May 2007 ------------- Loop quantum gravity and Planck-size black hole entropy [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703116[/URL] Alejandro Corichi, Jacobo Diaz-Polo, Enrique Fernandez-Borja -------------- And the thread [URL]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162229[/URL] ------------- [color=blue][B] 09 May 2007[/b][/color] How do we calculate the minimum quantum area? 1. The densest packing of circles in the plane is the hexagonal lattice of the bee's honeycomb which has a packing density of 1/6 * pi *sq root 3 = .9068996821 2. There are 24 units/circles that must cover approx. .9068996821 of the surface area of the sphere. The sphere area will be .093101 bigger than the area covered by the circles. The BI parameter that yields the desired agreement with S = A/4 is given by the value γ0 = 0.27398 Diameter..........Area sphere................Area circle 0.55279064............0.96 ....................0.240...... (not permitted) 0.2763953198.........0.24 ....................0.060...... (not permitted) 0.6909883............. 1.5 ..................... 0.375..... (not permitted) 1.3819766............. 6 .................... 1.5 ....... (not permitted) [B]2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... okay[/B] 5.5279064........... 96 ................... 24 .......... okay 11.55812............384 ................... 96 .......... okay 22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ......... okay 44.22325115......6,144 ................ 1,536 ......... okay Diameter..........Area sphere..........Area circle … # quantas ….. Area ratio c/s [B]2.763953198.....24 .................... 6 .......... 6 ……. ¼ [/B] 5.5279064........... 96 ................. 24 ......... 24 ……. ¼ 11.55812............384 ................... 96 ..........96 ……. ¼ 22.1116256.......1,536 .................. 384 ........ 384 ……. ¼ 44.22325115..... 6,144 ............. 1,536 ......1,536 ……... ¼ 88.44645 …….. 24,576 ………….... 6,144 ……. 6,144 ...…… ¼ 176.8929 ……. 98,304 …………... 24,576 …..24,576 ……... ¼ (the sphere will be approx 0.1 bigger than the area covered by the individual circles in a hex pattern ) (entropy) S = A/4. The 0.1 (10%) needs an explanation. There may be other restrictions/conditions that must be met to obtain a stable sphere. For instance, If we look on how the black hole might break up, rather than on how to make one. The black hole might break up into two groups of three energy unit. (quarks?) [B]This would lead us to postulate that a mini black hole might be produced using enough energy to bring 6 quarks close enough for them to orbit each other. (H-dibaryon) [/B]-------------- Would CERN produce enough energy to be able to produce a new particle made up of 6 quarks? Some might call it a heavy proton or a heavy neutron. When it broke up would it make two protons or two neutrons or one of each? Or something else? ---------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/9912/9912063v2.pdf [/url] [B]H-dibaryon[/B] Tsutomu Sakai, Kiyotaka Shimizu and Koichi Yazaki 08 jan 2000 p. 14 Another quark confinement mechanism is called flip-flop model… and studied in S = −2 channel. §4. Nucleon–H-dibaryon interaction In this section, we will review a study on the interaction between a nucleon and an Hdibaryon in Ref. 165) and further comment on the possible implication of the H-dibaryon to the world of the nucleus with S = −2. As stated in the introduction, the H-dibaryon is not only an interesting object in itself but also important in S = −2 sector nuclear physics. [B]In fact, though a few events of double hypernuclei were reported 147), 148), 149) and several candidate events have successively been reported recently, 150), 151)[/B] structures of these double hypernuclei have not been fully understood yet. It is possible that there is a double hypernucleus which have the character of an H-nucleus rather than ΛΛ nucleus, if the Hdibaryon is strongly bound in the nucleus. p. 21 Tamagaki suggested the possibility that H-matter appears at densities several times higher than normal nuclear density. 162) That work is based on an assumption that the CMI plays a key role in determining the properties of the H–H interaction. p. 22 In Tamagaki’s discussion 162) that there is a possibility of a phase transition from neutron matter to H-matter at a density which is 6 -> 9 times greater than the normal nuclear density ρ0. Using a relativistic mean field theory, it is studied how H-dibaryon condensate affects the equation of state and the properties of neutron stars. 164) It is shown that, if the limiting neutron star mass is about the mass of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar (1.44M⊙), a condensate of H-dibaryons with their mass in the vacuum about 2.2 GeV and a moderately attractive potential in the medium could not be ruled out. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9404221[/url] [B]H dibaryon in the QCD sum rule[/B] Nobuaki Kodama, Makoto Oka and Tetsuo Hatsuda 06 April 1994 -------------- Further searches gave me A power house!!!! [url]http://cosmo.nyu.edu/glennys_farrar.html[/url] Farrar and grad student G. Zaharijas have shown that the baryon asymmetry of the universe may be only an asymmetry in "packaging", with the baryon number in nucleons balanced by anti-baryonic dark matter. Observational constraints on such DM have been obtained and are found to be consistent with the expected DM properties. In one such scenario the DM consists of H and anti-H dibaryons, impelling a renewed study of a long-lived H dibaryon. ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0303/0303047v1.pdf[/url] [B]Transitions of two baryons to the H dibaryon in nuclei[/B] Glennys R. Farrar and Gabrijela Zaharijas 05 march 2003 I. INTRODUCTION The H dibaryon corresponds to the most symmetric color-spin representation of six quarks (uuddss). It is a flavor singlet state with charge 0, strangeness -2 and spin-isospin-parity I(JP ) = 0(0+). The existence of the H was predicted by Jaffe in 1977 [1] in the framework of the quark-bag model. Its mass was originally estimated to be around 2150 MeV, making it stable toward strong decay to two _ particles. Since then, there have been many theoretical efforts to determine its mass and production cross section and, on the experimental side, many inconclusive or unsuccessful attempts to produce and detect it. There are a number or possible reactions by which two nucleons can convert to an H in a nucleus. The initial state is most likely to be pn or nn in a relative s-wave, because in other cases the Coulomb barrier or relative orbital angular momentum suppresses the overlap of the nucleons at short distances which is necessary to produce the H. Note that the H does not bind to nuclei[15]; it simply recoils with some momentum imparted in its production. [B]There are five experiments which have reported positive results in the search for single _ decays from double _ hypernuclei.[/B] ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508150[/url] [B]Flavor-singlet hybrid baryons may already have been discovered[/B] Olaf Kittel Glennys R. Farrar 12 Aug 2005 The hybrid ansatz suggests, but does not predict, that the H-dibaryon mass may be as low as 1.5 GeV. ----------- Has anyone got anything newer or informative? -------------------- A talk given at Particles and Nuclei International Conference(PANIC05), Santa Fe, NM, Oct. 24-28, 2005 [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-lat/pdf/0601/0601005v1.pdf [/url] Multi-Quarks and Two-Baryon Interaction in Lattice QCD F. Okiharu, H. Suganuma, T. T. Takahashi and T. Doi 04 jan 2006 [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-lat/pdf/0601/0601003v1.pdf[/url] Anisotropic lattice QCD studies of penta-quarks and tetra-quarks N. Ishii, T. Doi, H. Iida, M. Oka, F. Okiharu, H. Suganuma and K. Tsumura 01 jan 2006 --------------------- The work on [B]H dibaryon [/B]spheres by Glennys R. Farrar and others strongly suggest that the minimum length scale should be at 10^-16 and would not need to be scaled to 10^-18. [B]My poor poor H dibaryon sphere!!!![/B] With hex packing and minimum scale each of the (red) quarks must be separated by an empty position to be able to move into. This will mean that the minimum sphere will be 10% bigger than the sum of the 24 positions. The kinds of quarks will determine the packing density configurations. [B]The mini-black holes that could be produced at CERN will be H dibaryon sphere! They reveal the QMLS![/B] [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/h_dibaryon.gif [/IMG] [b]You get into the Standard Model from QMLS[/b] --------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-lat/pdf/0206/0206009v1.pdf[/url] Light Hadron Spectrum and Quark Masses from Quenched Lattice QCD S. Aoki, G. Boyd, R. Burkhalter, S. Ejiri, M. Fukugita, S. Hashimoto, Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya, T. Kaneko, Y. Kuramashi, K. Nagai, M. Okawa, H. P. Shanahan, A. Ukawa, T. Yoshi´e (June 13, 2002) --------------

Big Bang is dead

Big Bang is dead The big bang concept is built around the mathematical concept of singularity, zero, and quantum fluctuation around zero point energy (foaming vacuum). To this was added inflation which was built on the model of ice freezing. The expansion is added in to coincide with the observation of light being red shifted. A new approach has been proposed which puts an end to the big bang and all approaches that use singularities to explain, wave packets, black holes etc.) “Bounce” is a different mathematical approach. It eliminates singularity, zero, and quantum fluctuation that go below zero. [b] BOUNCE imposes a minimum length.[/b] Some might like to think of this as taking a different time slice where everything happens in our time frame and our perceived 3d universe. Added to this is “re heating” which had to be added to reconcile the observations of the distributions of the galaxies and to try to account for “dark energy/matter”. The big bang and the bounce are totally different mathematical approaches that should not be confused. The bounce approach can be falsified/proven since it explain everything within a minimum length that is within our universe. This minimum length might be revealed at CERN if it scaled to 10^-18. Already, 5 experiments on 2d H-dibaryon sphere configurations have been identified that suggest that there is a structure of quarks at a possible scale of 10^-16. People who work with the Standard Model identify their concepts with particles, waves and fields. They do not use a Quantum Minimum Length Structure or the language of LQG. As a result, they would be proposing a new particle or force field that would have small interaction at low energy (our large universe of matter and photons) which would/could account for dark matter/energy and the expansion of the universe. Trying to keep the old/existing mathematical approach to expansion will not work with a Quantum Minimum Length Structure because it would mean that we would observe the fluctuations/variations of all the “energy waves” as they traveled from point A to point B. In other words, we would observe fluctuations in the speed of light that could not be explained by relativity. On the other hand, it would be child play for a math kid to arrange the double tetras in a geometric configuration which would be able to explain the bending of light around the sun. [b]A good razor is all that is needed to show that the expansion of the universe is achievable by adding more of the same minimum length units than what is being recycled.[/b] ---------------------- WARNING: Everything that is being said is to be regarded as NEW speculation that replaces the old/established speculations. Until you hear the same thing from your favorite guru or better still, confirmation from CERN use a grain of salt.

BIG BANG IS DEAD-PART 2 (WHAT MY GURUS SAY)

Here is what my favorite gurus are saying. (citations) [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2222v1.pdf [/url] Loop Quantum Gravity: Four Recent Advances and a Dozen Frequently Asked Questions Abhay Ashtekar 15 may 2007 p. 5 …. However the recent, much more complete and detailed analysis [2] has shown that the universe does recollapse in LQC and agreement with classical general relativity on amax is excellent. Even for universes which are so small that amax ≈ 30ℓPl, the classical Friedmann formula ρmin = 3/(8π Ga2max) holds to one part in 10−5 and the agreement improves greatly for ‘macroscopic’ universes, i.e., ones with macroscopic values of amax. ---------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612104v2.pdf [/url] Loop quantum cosmology of k=1 FRW models Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh, and Kevin Vandersloot, 23 Jan 2007 p. 30 … results hold even for universes with amax ≈ 25ℓPl and the ‘sharply peaked’ property improves as amax grows. [b]Using the minimum scale … k = r = 1.3819765 ( see blog entry d = 2.763953198 Barbero-Immirzi parameter) and amax = 24ℓPl[/b] ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703144v1.pdf [/url] Dynamical coherent states and physical solutions of quantum cosmological bounces Martin Bojowald 29 march 2007 In this paper, a model, introduced in [1], is studied which is exactly solvable and includes characteristic effects of loop quantum gravity, one candidate for a background independent quantization [2, 3, 4]. The model itself is based on loop quantum cosmology [5]. With new techniques [6, 7], coherent state properties can be determined explicitly. In this sense, the model is analogous to the harmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics and it has indeed the same solvability properties as explained in more detail below. This will allow us to perform a complete dynamical coherent state analysis, demonstrating how properties can differ considerably for distinct systems even when one considers only solvable models. The model we study is not only illuminating in this regard, but it also is of direct physical interest since it describes non-singular cosmological bounce models. --------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0312/0312059v3.pdf [/url] On the quantum width of a black hole horizon Donald Marolf 05 jan 2004 Some time ago, it was argued by Sorkin [13] that one should cut-off the entropy of the thermal atmosphere at an even larger distance from the black hole horizon. Quantum fluctuations within Lc of the classical horizon are then perhaps better described as fluctuations of the black hole itself, and may plausibly be assumed to already be included in the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole. (Though of course the details of how or whether the full entropy is reflected in a spacetime description remains unclear.) It is amusing to note that for Schwarzschild black holes in 3+1 dimensions Lc is only just below nuclear length scales for astrophysical black holes and begins to approach atomic length scales for the largest known supermassive black holes. [b]Note: Lc is the quantum minimum length …. 10^-18 (below nuclear length scales) …. 10^-16 H-dibaryon sphere (to approach atomic length scales)[/b] ----------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9310/9310026v1.pdf [/url] DIMENSIONAL REDUCTION in QUANTUM GRAVITY† G. ’t Hooft 19 Oct 1993 Abstract The requirement that physical phenomena associated with gravitational collapse should be duly reconciled with the postulates of quantum mechanics implies that at a Planckian scale our world is not 3+1 dimensional. Rather, the observable degrees of freedom can best be described as if they were Boolean variables defined on a two-dimensional lattice, evolving with time. This observation, deduced from not much more than unitarity, entropy and counting arguments, implies severe restrictions on possible models of quantum gravity. Using cellular automata as an example it is argued that this dimensional reduction implies more constraints than the freedom we have in constructing models. This is the main reason why so-far no completely consistent mathematical models of quantum black holes have been found. ----------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0201/0201034v2.pdf [/url] Classical Black Hole Production in High-Energy Collisions Douglas M. Eardley, and Steven B. Giddings (Dated: May 31, 2006) The proposal that the fundamental Planck mass could be as low as a TeV has excited new interest in the problem of black hole formation in ultra-relativistic collisions. Lowering the Planck scale to O(TeV ) thus raises the exciting prospect that black holes can be produced at future accelerators, perhaps even at the LHC[7, 8]. --------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.1786v1.pdf [/url] Quantum Gravity Boundary Terms from Spectral Action Ali H. Chamseddine, and Alain Connes 12 May 2007 -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.1769v1.pdf [/url] Ultraviolet properties of f(R)–Gravity Alessandro Codello, Roberto Percacci, and Christoph Rahmede 12 May 2007 -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2388v1.pdf [/url] The loop-quantum-gravity vertex-amplitude Jonathan Engle, Roberto Pereira, Carlo Rovelli 16 May 2007 [b]note: When they have 12 tetra they will have a 3d model.[/b] ----------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.0006v1.pdf [/url] Multiple-event probability in general-relativistic quantum mechanics: a discrete model Mauricio Mondragon, Alejandro Perez, Carlo Rovelli April 30, 2007 ----------------------- [b]Black Holes are 2d surfaces and have inbound material. The big bang is a 2d surface and has outbound material. At the 2d surfaces there are no orthogonal EMF (p,q) This is not a Toy Model. It’s the real thing. Scaling and dimensional reduction works with QMLS to reproduce our perceived universe.[/b] ------------------- [b]Job opening (expanded)[/b] Write a peer review paper intergrating H-dibaryon with LQG, Spin network and Strings with QMLS. Write a eulogy for the big bang and the bounce. Kick the devil. Midwife for a baby elephant. ---------------- [color=blue][B] Warning: Ignore/disregard everything said by someone who has not demonstrated his credentials. He/she is probably only making lucky guesses without understanding anything that he/she is saying. Science can only be understood after many years of study under the wings of the right guru. It is only permitted to answer his/her questions which demonstrate your superiority. Cease immediately, if that person has not demonstrated sufficient humiliation and has not recognized your superiority. Lastly, be polite, that unknown person may be connected to someone who could have a positive or a negative impact on your next paycheck. [/b][/color] -------------- more citations [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2533v1.pdf [/url] DARK ENERGY AND GRAVITY T. Padmanabhan (Dated: May 17, 2007) Based on the role expected to be played by surfaces in spacetime, we shall take the relevant degrees of freedom to be the normalised vector fields ni(x) in the spacetime [54] with a norm which is fixed at every event but might vary from event to event: (i.e., nini ≡ ǫ(x) with ǫ(x) being a fixed function; one can choose the norm to be 0,±1 at each event by our choice of the vector fields but its nature can vary from event to event.) The area scaling for surviving degrees of freedom emerges naturally but it is unclear how to connect up the energy fluctuations in these degrees of freedom to the source of gravity. The resulting theory is far more general than Einstein gravity since the thermodynamic interpretations should transcend classical considerations and incorporate some of the microscopic corrections. --------------------- [url]http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~bekenste/Holographic_Univ.pdf [/url] [b]Theoretical results suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram by Jacob D. Bekenstein[/b] ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0404/0404055v2.pdf [/url] Ln(3) and Black Hole Entropy_ Olaf Dreyer 14 April 2004 Abstract We review an idea that uses details of the quasinormal mode spectrum of a black hole to obtain the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of A/4 in Loop Quantum Gravity. We further comment on a recent proposal concerning the quasinormal mode spectrum of rotating black holes. We conclude by remarking on a recent proposal to include supersymmetry. ------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0401/0401052v1.pdf [/url] Highly Damped Quasinormal Modes of Kerr Black Holes: A Complete Numerical Investigation Emanuele Berti Vitor Cardoso Shijun Yoshida (Dated: April 12, 2007) Hod obtained, for the Schwarzschild BH, k = 3. Following his proposal, further enhanced by the prospect of using similar reasoning in Loop Quantum Gravity to fix the Barbero-Immirzi parameter [6], the interest in highly damped BH QNMs has grown considerably [7]. There is now reason to believe that the connection between QN frequencies and the BH area quantum is not as straightforward as initially suggested. For both charged and rotating black holes the asymptotic QNM frequency ωR depends only on the black hole geometry, not on the perturbing field. If QNMs do indeed play a role in black hole quantization this is an essential prerequisite, and it seems to hold. -------------

BIG BANG IS DEAD-(PART 3- WHITE HOLES)

I want to understand how the universe is made and how it works. I reserve the right to change my mind on what I extrapolated from what I have learned if new information contradict what I have already learned. There is a missing piece of the puzzle that everyone is trying to find. I don’t care it they call it a brane, higgs, particle, dark matter, plaquettes, 5 force, white hole, etc. At the end of the day, it’s going to fit into and be part of a structured spacetime. [url]http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/fredhoyle.html[/url] Professor Sir Fred Hoyle [1915-2001] [b]Fred believed that, as a general rule, solutions to major unsolved problems had to be sought by exploring radical hypotheses, whilst at the same time not deviating from well-attested scientific tools and methods. For if such solutions did indeed lie in the realms of orthodox theory upon which everyone agreed, they would either have been discovered already, or they would be trivial.[/b] ========== We should keep our feet on the ground. [url]http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm[/url] Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial [url]http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm[/url] Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models [url]http://www.aas.org/head/headnews/headnews.nov00.html[/url] 3. Robert Michael Hjellming 1938-2000 ============= If matter really vanishes inside black holes, as if they were bottomless pits, where has the matter gone? British Theorist [b]Roger Penrose suggested some time ago that the missing matter may pop out elsewhere in the universe —or even in an entirely different universe.[/b] Picking up where Penrose left off, [b] Robert M. Hjellming says that the point at which the matter re-emerges in the other universe would be a white hole. Even more intriguing, this passage of matter would not be a one-way street. Matter would also leave the other universe through black holes, says Hjellming, and appear in ours through white holes. Thus the flow of matter between the two universes would be kept in balance. But, he adds, some evidence may already be at hand that white holes do exist. One of the great puzzles of contemporary astrophysics is the huge amount of energy —cosmic rays, X rays, infrared radiation —that is apparently coming from distant quasars and from the centers of galaxies, including the earth's own Milky Way; the output seems to be greater than can be accounted for by known physical processes, including the conversion of matter into energy by thermonuclear explosions. If it could be shown that matter and energy were coming from another universe, Hjellming says, that problem would be neatly solved.[/b] ============= [b]From J. Baez[/b] [url]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html [/url] The big bang is therefore more like a white hole which is the time reversal of a black hole. According to classical general relativity white holes should not exist since they cannot be created for the same (time-reversed) reasons that black holes cannot be destroyed. [b]This might not apply if they always existed. The possibility that the big bang is actually a white hole remains.[/b] ….. we must ask if there is a white hole model for the universe which would be as consistent with observations as the FRW models. A white hole model which fitted cosmological observation would have to be the time reversal of a star collapsing to form a black hole. It follows that the time reversal of this model for a collapsing sphere of dust is indistinguishable from the FRW models if the dust sphere is larger than the observable universe. [b] In other words, we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is a very large white hole.[/b] ============== With minimum length there should be quantum mini black holes then there should also be quantum mini white holes. Where are the many mini white holes hiding that are still adding to the structural elements into our universe so that we observe expansion, acceleration and dark mater/energy? ============ [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F9505012[/url] Spectroscopy of the quantum black hole Jacob D. Bekenstein, V. F. Mukhanov 10 May 1995 (Received April 13, 2006) One prediction is that there should be no lines with wavelength of order the black hole size or larger. This makes it possible to test quantum gravity with black holes well above Planck scale. [b]Note: substitute “white” for “black”[/b] =========== Different calculations are being done to find the missing piece of the puzzle but nobody has agreed on the name for the baby elephant. Quantum physic and cosmology abound with unsupported theories. Here is a sample of reasonable thoughts from a search of the web on White Holes The idea of a white hole is the opposite of a black hole, and is entertained more in science fiction than in actual science journals. Some believe it is the "other side" of a black hole. It is theorized to spew matter and energy out. A flaw in this theory, as many scientists have noted, is that the matter ejected from the white hole would accumulate in the vicinity of the hole, and then collapse upon itself, forming a black hole. The existence of white holes is implied by a negative square root solution to the Schwarzchild metric for space-time-matter continuum. A white hole will turn up in your mathematics if you explore the space-time around a black hole without including the star which made the black hole (ie. there is absolutely no matter in the solution). Once you add any matter to the space-time, the part which included a white hole disappears. A physicist that specializes in relativity will probably say that white holes are simply time-reversed black holes in which all geodesics must emerge but not enter. A geodesic, by the way, is the 4-dimensional world-line of a particle as it traces its path through space and time. For a black hole, all geodesics at the event horizon may enter but not leave, however, if you reversed the direction of time, the same black hole with 'positive time' becomes a white hole with 'negative time' Would anything be emerging from the white hole in a constant stream? Not unless it entered the black hole end in the first place, or spontaneously was produced inside the Kerr worm hole by perhaps a quantum mechanical process of some kind. In astrophysics, a white hole is a postulated celestial body that is the time reversal of a black hole. While a black hole acts as a point mass that attracts and absorbs any nearby matter, a white hole acts as a point mass that repels or (perhaps) even ejects matter. The existence of white holes that are not part of a wormhole is doubtful, as they appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. =================== second law of thermodynamics. Meaning #1: a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed. The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. =========== If we are to do “new physics” at the quantum level then the “new physics” must also be reflected at the larger scales. ================ Present avenues of research are not looking too promising. [url]http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0306134[/url] STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES OF DIRECT DARK MATTER SEARCHES G. CHARDIN 04 June 2006 Supersymmetric particles represent the best motivated candidates to fill the Dark Matter gap Worse, although CDM appears essential to produce cosmic structures observed at our present epoch, agreement with observations is marginal without additional components, such as neutrinos. ================= Doing a little bit of balancing on the shoulders of giants and adding the facts of missing neutrinos, minimum scale, dark matter/energy, acceleration, and all of the empty spacetime particles that exist between galaxies, If black holes are connected to a 2d universe that are continuously subtracting spacetime then there must exist white hole that are continuously adding spacetime to account for the expansion and the acceleration of the universe. ============ You might find this explanation of the Standard Model as interesting as I did. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2232[/url] Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking as a Basis of Particle Mass Chris Quigg Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois 60510 USA And Theory Group, Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland 17 April 2007 The aim of this article is to set the stage by reporting what we know and what we need to know, and to set some “Big Questions” that will guide our explorations. ------------- Chris Quigg originally proposed a double simplex model. ============= I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO READING ABOUT A [B] NEW[/B] COSMOLOGICAL MODEL THAT WILL AGREE WITH THE “NEW PHYSICS” OF MINIMUM LENGTH. ---------------

BIG BANG IS DEAD-PART 4 GRAVITY

[b]The big bang model has never worked…. Observations have never supported the big bang model. We just thought that it did.[/b] From present observation, it appears that galaxies are distributed as if on the surfaces of connected soap bubbles AND accelerating. Based on what we know of Black Hole mechanics in our universe, is 'shrinking the universe down to a point' a valid lookback (time reversal) of a gravitational collapse? The only valid lookback that can be done is to stops at where the soap bubbles are so small that what we would be looking at is a bag of dust. [b]Models of a bag of dust cannot be made that evolve/agree with the distribution of galaxies as if on the surfaces of connected soap bubbles.[/b] [b]From the point of view of the observer at the center of the bubble, the walls are receding and found to be accelerating, as more space units are being added to the space structure, between him and the walls. Different bubbles …. Different sizes …. Different observations …. Different conclusions.[/b] This then begs the question. Where are the space units coming from? Are they coming from the center of the bubbles or the surface of the bubbles? We have not noticed anything happening in the center of the bubbles. [url]http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm[/url] How does gravity work? Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. ---------------------- The search for an answer is happening at all scales. 1. A NEW EXPANSION MECHANISM. 2. SPECIFIC TIME REQUIRED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OLBERS’ PARADOX 3. ORIGIN MUST HAVE HIGH ENERGY 4. EXPLAIN THE ABUDANCE OF HYDROGEN, HELIUM 5. EXPLAIN NEUTRINOS 6. EXPLAIN DARK MATTER/ENERGY 7. NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF TERMODYNAMICS 8. EXPLAIN THE QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE --------------- Professor Sir Fred Hoyle [1915-2001] CAME THE CLOSEST WITH THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION. He would have been right if he would have known about QMLS. --------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeVeS [/url] Tensor-Vector-Scalar gravity (TeVeS) [url]http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1 [/url] Gravity's dark side Feature: June 2006 [url]http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/origins/darkenergy/Talks/Bean.pdf [/url] Constraining modified gravity theories of dark energy Origin of Dark energy mat 2007 The latest info on the distribution of stars etc. [url]http://cfcp.uchicago.edu/research/publications/index.html[/url] KICP Publications -------------------- PICK UP YOUR SHOVEL. The big bang is dead. insert: (speculative conclusions) Where are the many mini white holes hiding that are still adding to the structural elements into our universe so that we observe expansion, acceleration and dark mater/energy? Isotopes certainly qualify as unstable configurations of a structure. [url]http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0511/0511051.pdf [/url] On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars O. Manuel, Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe (Submitted on 18 Nov 2005) Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces. Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission). This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures. [url]http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0510/0510001.pdf[/url] Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation O. Manuel1, Sumeet A. Kamat2, and Michael Mozina To be published in Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference Monção, Portugal, 23-25 June 2005 (Submitted on 28 Sep 2005) The Source Of Luminosity In An Iron-Rich Sun Figure 9 [53, 54, 76] is a summary of the events revealed by findings that the Sun and its planets formed out of fresh supernova debris and inherited chemical and isotope heterogeneities from the parent star: a.) Short-lived radioactive isotopes in the material that formed the planetary system (See Figures 1 and 2). b.) Isotope anomalies in meteorites, planets, and Sun from stellar nuclear reactions (See Figures 3, 4 and 7). c.) Element and isotope variations linked together in proto-planetary material (See Figure 8 and 10). Evidence of mass-dependent fractionation, in the Sun and in the parent star that produced the solar system, was recorded by these separations of lightweight elements and isotopes from heavier ones: a.) Variations in the non-cosmogenic neon isotope abundances shown in Figures 5 and 6. b.) Linked fractionation-plus-nuclear effects in FUN inclusions of meteorites [44, 45] (See also Figure 4). c.) High abundances of lightweight isotopes in the solar wind (See Figure 12). d.) High abundances of lightweight elements in the photosphere (See Figures 11 and 13). e.) Images of a rigid, iron-rich structure below the Sun’s fluid outer layers (See Figures 14 and 15). The scenario in Figure 9 offers a viable solution for these observations, but that solution raises another puzzle: How can the Sun shine if its most abundant element is iron? The answer to this question, identified above as the fourth enigma, will also explain Fowler’s “solar neutrino problem” [ref. 84, p. xi].

PART#5- INFLATON IS DEAD

insert 14 July:[url]http://www.matmor.unam.mx/eventos/loops07/[/url] Quantum Evolution in an Expanding Hilbert Space Isabeau Prémont-Schwarz ( No need for inflaton, just insert an additional unit.) WOW!!!! wow!!! What a paper!!!! Tell Martin Bojowald (and those that he cited), that I’m throwing a party and supplying the refreshments and photo ops. (They can get an expense account from their depts.). [B]Marcus[/B], you can forget all the other papers …. This is the most influential paper … and it will be for years to come. I want to tell all the “seekers” about this paper. [B]I want to tell the whole world![/B] Contrarily to Martin Bojowald, I can take a definite position and say that his paper presents a strong argument as to why the “inflaton” is not needed. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4398v1.pdf[/url] The Dark Side of a Patchwork Universe Martin Bojowald 30 may 2007 A complete understanding of the universe currently faces several problems, most of which are occasionally expected to be solved by some version of quantum gravity. This also applies to the dark energy problem. Schematically, one has a picture where space is presented as a discrete structure building up from a small state at the big bang to a highly refined, nearly continuous fabric today. The evolution picture is thus that of an irregular lattice structure which changes in internal time by [b]elementary changes of geometry.[/b] [B]Note: just add one more unit every once in a while[/B] From the point of view of quantum field theory on curved space-times one can effectively view the finiteness of vacuum energy in loop quantum gravity as a cut-off provided by the underlying discrete structure of loop quantum gravity. On the grounds of dimensional arguments one would expect that [b]the cut-off occurs at Planckian values of energy or length,[/b] which would certainly result in the well known mismatch between the predicted and observed cosmological constants. [B]Note: I would like to see arguments why the cutoff cannot be at 10^18 (gluon interaction sizes/length)[/B] It is to be expected that vacuum energy in this formalism does not only depend on the matter state but also on quantum geometry. In fact, such a quantum geometry epoch of inflation typically does not last long enough to provide all 60 e-foldings required for successful structure formation. Moreover, such an isotropic model with only inverse volume corrections is not very accurate at large volume because it does not fully take into account the dynamical discreteness of space manifesting itself in lattice refinements determined by the elementary moves of a Hamiltonian constraint. [B]Rather, during expansion the discrete structure of space subdivides as described in Sec. 2 which can be modeled by adding new small, discrete patches resulting from new vertices of graphs. When the number of patches increases with volume, their size stays nearly constant or could even decrease.[/b] [B]francesca[/B] I did not even look at the other papers that you mentioned. Martin Bojowald’s paper was just tooooo much! jal --------------- I was waiting for comment from the more informed and critical members of this forum and I was also searching for clarifications and so as to improve my knowledge. Since no one has posted any other comments …. here are my comments. (for a general audience) Martin Bojowald in “The Dark Side of a Patchwork Universe” is also proposing that quantization could be an approach for solving the Casimir Effects, which is outside of the proton, neutron drip-line and proposes an intuitive understanding of the “quark sea” which is inside the drip-line. ----------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0406/0406024v1.pdf[/url] REVIEW ARTICLE The Casimir effect: Recent controversies and Progress Kimball A. Milton 02 june 2004 --------------- p. 61 This promises to add another bit of understanding to our knowledge of Casimir forces, knowledge that seems to grow only incrementally based on specific calculations, since a general understanding is still not at hand. p. 62 6. Dynamical Casimir Effects Dynamically, photons indeed should be produced by QED by a rapidly oscillating bubble, but to produce the requisite number (106 per flash) necessitated, if not superluminal velocities at least macroscopic collapse time scales of order 10−15 s, rather than the observed 10−11 s scale [80]. ----------- The casmir effect has been observed down to 10nm. The similarity with the "quark sea" at 0.1 fm is only that... a similarity. The two are different. -------------- 10 june [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3793v1[/url] Precision measurement of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in a fluid Authors: Jeremy N. Munday, Federico Capasso (Submitted on 25 May 2007) ---------------------- This is the only game in town. [url]http://www.phys.psu.edu/~cteq/handbook/v1.1/handbook.pdf[/url] Handbook of perturbative QCD [quote]p. 25 The successes of QCD in describing the strong interactions are summarized by two terms: asymptotic freedom (Gross and Wilczek, 1973a; Politzer, 1973) and confinement. To understand the importance of these two attributes we should recall some facts about the strong interactions. Hadron spectra are very well described by the quark model, but quarks have never been seen in isolation. Any effort to produce single quarks in scattering experiments leads only to the production of the familiar mesons and baryons. Evidently, the forces between quarks are strong. Paradoxically, however, certain high energy cross sections are quite successfully described by a model in which the quarks do not interact at all. This is the parton model that we shall describe in Section III.. Asymptotic freedom refers to the weakness of the short-distance interaction, while the confinement of quarks follows from its strength at long distances. An extraordinary feature of QCD is its ability to accommodate both kinds of behavior. It does this by making the forces between quarks a rather complicated function of distance. Qualitatively, when two quarks are close together, the force is relatively weak (this is asymptotic freedom), but when they move farther apart the force becomes much stronger (confinement). At some distance, it becomes easier to make new quarks and antiquarks, which combine to form hadrons, than to keep pulling against the ever-increasing force. [b]The realization that a single theory might describe such a complicated behavior is commonplace nowadays, but it required a major reorientation in our way of thinking about fundamental forces.[/b][/quote] -------------- Doing quantization (LQG) is much more intuitive that “dipping” into an unknown “quark sea” and picking out “particles” that make the parton model work. ------------- [quote]p.158 The parton distributions are determined with much more precision than before. On the other hand, these analyses also are calling into question, for the first time, the ultimate consistency of the existing theoretical framework with all existing experimental measurements! (This can be regarded as testimony to the progress made in both theory and experiment – considering the fact that contradictions come with precision, and they are a necessary condition for discovering overlooked shortcomings and/or harbingers of new physics.)[/quote] -------------- [url]http://cerncourier.com/main/article/44/5/13/1[/url] … so lattices 2.5 fm across or larger are thought to be sufficient for calculations at present. The development of higher order, "improved" discretizations of QCD has allowed calculations to be performed that give answers close to continuum QCD, with values for the lattice spacing of around 0.1 fm. (Note: size of proton approx. 1.0 fm) Two different values of the lattice spacing have been simulated to check discretization errors and two different volumes (2.5 and 3.5 fm across) to check finite volume errors. ----------------- (Note: this is still within the nucleus/drip-line.) -------------- Confusion reigns in the only game in town. The naming of the processes/action and the naming of the particles are all mixed up. (Let me use a coin for an example. It could be representing a quark/gluon in the “quark sea”) To me it would be like turning a coin, front (+), side (zero/quark sea/Z.P.E.), back (-) and then renaming those actions as well as renaming the front, side, back when all along you forgot that it’s a coin that you are turning over. Then, renaming all the ways (x,y,z) that the coin can be turned. (Even if you have 3 coins.) I don’t see how the transformation from an action to a particle or any transformation from a particle to an action can change the coins. How can re-naming of the position or re-naming the momentum change the coins? [b]What would you do if you had 12 coins? Call it a quark sea? [/b]) Would one more coin (13) or 4 more (16) be the entry point into the parton model in the drip-line? ------------- [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/haddia.html#c1[/url] hadron diagram ---------------- [B]I would bet that when CERN goes fishing in the “quark sea” that their anchor will reach bottom at 10^-18. If I got it all wrong then I’ll take my place in a long line up of people who know more than me.[/B] Maybe someone else has comment for the specialized audience? [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/3dspace.gif[/img] (The image may not show due to overload) ----------------

WHAT’S IN THE NUCLEON?

[url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1534v1.pdf[/url] Coupling gauge theory to spinfoam 3d quantum gravity Simone Speziale June 11, 2007 Note: The Acknowledgments: The author is particularly grateful to Carlo Rovelli, Laurent Freidel, Hendryk Pfeiffer and John Barrett for many discussions and suggestions. -------------------- Maybe, everyone only wants to read the simple presentations in my blog. --------------- Previous papers [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0606/0606074v2.pdf[/url] A semiclassical tetrahedron Carlo Rovelli and Simone Speziale_ CPT†, CNRS Case 907, Universit´e de la M´editerran´ee, F-13288 Marseille Perimeter Institute, 31 Caroline St.N, Waterloo, ON-N2L-2Y5, Canada March 31, 2007 [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611097v1.pdf[/url] Grasping rules and semiclassical limit of the geometry in the Ponzano–Regge model Jonathan Hackett and Simone Speziale 17 Nov 2006 --------------- [b]Choosing the double tetra as a spinfoam 3d model is only the beginning of a long journey.[/b] -------------------- Does anyone know if a baby elephant is born head first? ------------ WHAT’S IN THE NUCLEON? [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0306/0306287v1.pdf[/url] QCD Phenomenology Lectures at the CERN–Dubna School, Pylos, August 2002 Yu.L. Dok****zer Abstract The status of QCD phenomena and open problems are reviewed 29 June 2003 ------------------- (Chiral Quark–Soliton Model (CQSM) ) [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0608/0608197v1.pdf[/url] Nuclear matter in the chiral quark soliton model with vector mesons S.Nagai1, N.Sawado, and N.Shiiki1, (Dated: March 22, 2007) The idea of investigating dense nuclear matter in the topological soliton models has been developed over decades. It was first applied for the nuclear matter system with the skyrmion centered cubic (CC) crystal by Klebanov [1]. This configuration was studied further by W¨ust, Brown and Jackson to estimate the baryon density and discuss the phase transition between nuclear matter and quark matter [2]. Goldhabor and Manton found a new configuration, body-centered cubic (BCC) of half-skyrmions in a higher density regime [3]. The face centered cubic (FCC) and BCC lattice were studied by Castillejo et al. [4] and the phase transitions between those configurations were investigated by Kugler and Shtrikman [5]. Recently, the idea of using crystallized skyrmions to study nuclear matter was revived by Park, Min, Rho and Vento with the introduction of the Atiyah-Manton multi-soliton ansatz in a unit cell [6]. The chiral quark soliton model (CQSM) can be interpreted as the soliton bag model including not only valence quarks but also the vacuum sea quark polarization effects explicitly [16, 17, 18, 19]. The model provides correct observables of a nucleon such as mass, electromagnetic value, spin carried by quarks, parton distributions and octet, decuplet SU(3) baryon spectra [20, 21]. ---------------- [B]The following is a good explanations of the quark sea with the use of instantons[/B] ---------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0205/0205054v1.pdf[/url] INSTANTONS AND BARYON DYNAMICS DMITRI DIAKONOV 06 may 2002 Instanton fluctuations are characterized by their position in space-time zμ, the spatial size p and orientation in color space O, all in all by 12 collective coordinates. [b]Note: It should be possible to link the double tetras to 12 instantons. ref. p.13 from [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1534v1.pdf[/url] The key diagram to evaluate is …. (see paper) This diagram has 4 x 36 = 144 contributions, coming from all the possible choices of graspings in a given point, times the four points. Each contribution can be evaluated using grasping rules and recoupling theory as in [8]. Because there are only double graspings entering this expression, the evaluation is rather simple and we do not report the details here, but only the asymptotics. Let us distinguish two types of terms, when the YM grasping is diagonal, namely s3 = t3, and when is not diagonal, namely s3 6= t3. Consider first the diagonal case. For fixed s3 = ij, there are 4 contributions from p = i, and four from p = j. To fix ideas, let us choose s3 = 12 …. [/b] The average size of instantons found in ref. 11 is ¯_ ≈ 0.36 fm and their average separation is ¯R = (N/V )−1 4 ≈ 0.89 fm. Similar results have been obtained by other lattice groups using various techniques. A decade earlier the basic characteristics of the instanton ensemble were obtained analytically from the Feynman variational principle 12,13 and expressed through the only dimensional parameter _ one has in QCD: ¯_ ≈ 0.48/_MS ≃ 0.35 fm, ¯R ≈ 1.35/_MS ≃ 0.95 fm, if one uses _MS = 280MeV as it follows from the DIS data. Summing up instanton-induced quark interactions in baryons leads to the Chiral Quark–Soliton Model where baryons appear to be bound states of constituent quarks pulled together by the chiral field. The model enables one to compute numerous parton distributions, as well as ‘static’ characteristics of baryons – with no fitting parameters. Numerous parton distributions have been computed in the CQSM, mainly by the Bochum group. 27,28,29 There have been a number of mysteries from naive quark models’ point of view: the large number of antiquarks already at a low virtuality, the ‘spin crisis’, the large flavor asymmetry of antiquarks, etc. The CQSM explains all those ‘mysteries’ in a natural way as it incorporates, together with valence quarks bound by the isospin-1 pion field, the negative energy Dirac sea. Furthermore, the CQSM predicts nontrivial phenomena that have not been observed so far: large flavor asymmetry of the polarized antiquarks 29, transversity distributions 30, peculiar shapes of the so-called skewed parton distributions 31 and other phenomena in hard exclusive reactions. 32 [b] Baryon dynamics is rich and far from naive “three quarks” expectations.[/b] ------------------- [B]What is the popularity of the Chiral Quark–Soliton Model (CQSM)? Has the addition of the INSTANTONS to explain the “quark sea” been received as a positive step? Has anyone been able to make the connection with the Chiral Quark–Soliton Model (CQSM) and spinfoam or 12 INSTANTON TO THE DOUBLE TETRAS?[/B] --------------------- jal

Smallest possible black hole-1.0 fm (proton)

[color=blue][b] inserted 14 Nov 2007 Ansari is proposing a formula that would be able to analyze a mini black hole. It would also determine if the minimum length has been reached by CERN. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1879 Area, ladder symmetry, degeneracy and fluctuations of a horizon Authors: Mohammad H. Ansari (Submitted on 13 Nov 2007) A few of harmonic modes appear to be extremely amplified on top of the Hawking's radiation. They are expected to form a few brightest lines with the wavelength not larger than the black hole size.[/b][/color] ----------- This blog entry is more of a list of questions that I have than a list of answers. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.3239v1.pdf[/url] Black hole entropy, curved space and monsters Stephen D. H. Hsu and David Reeb 21 June 2007 Almost all of the entropy of a given black hole must result from a smaller black hole which has absorbed some additional mass. It is also worth noting that a single s-wave mode with energy m = 1/R = 1/M has entropy O(1), so satisfies S = Mm. Thus, a black hole can move along the S = A curve by absorbing such modes. This is arguably the smallest amount of energy that can be absorbed by the hole, since otherwise the Compton wavelength of the mode is much larger than the horizon itself. ----------- [b]What is he saying?[/b] How would the Compton wavelength fit in with [b] the ultraviolet and an infrared cutoff, if the cut off is as a result of the minimum length and the resulting structure? The smallest black hole has got to be bigger than the smallest wavelength that can exist. [/b] ------------- We seem to have some possible length scales from [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0205/0205054v1.pdf[/url] INSTANTONS AND BARYON DYNAMICS DMITRI DIAKONOV 06 may 2002 [b]The average size of instantons found in ref. 11 is ¯_ ≈ 0.36 fm and their average separation is ¯R = (N/V )−1 4 ≈ 0.89 fm.[/b] Similar results have been obtained by other lattice groups using various techniques. A decade earlier the basic characteristics of the instanton ensemble were obtained analytically from the Feynman variational principle 12,13 and expressed through the only dimensional parameter _ one has in QCD: ¯_ ≈ 0.48/_MS ≃ 0.35 fm, ¯R ≈ 1.35/_MS ≃ 0.95 fm, if one uses _MS = 280MeV as it follows from the DIS data. -------------- We seem to be having some possible structures from [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0608/0608197v1.pdf[/url] Nuclear matter in the chiral quark soliton model with vector mesons S.Nagai1, N.Sawado, and N.Shiiki1, (Dated: March 22, 2007) The idea of investigating dense nuclear matter in the topological soliton models has been developed over decades. It was first applied for the nuclear matter system with the skyrmion centered cubic (CC) crystal by Klebanov [1]. This configuration was studied further by W¨ust, Brown and Jackson to estimate the baryon density and discuss the phase transition between nuclear matter and quark matter [2]. Goldhabor and Manton found a new configuration, body-centered cubic (BCC) of half-skyrmions in a higher density regime [3]. The face centered cubic (FCC) and BCC lattice were studied by Castillejo et al. [4] and the phase transitions between those configurations were investigated by Kugler and Shtrikman [5]. Recently, the idea of using crystallized skyrmions to study nuclear matter was revived by Park, Min, Rho and Vento with the introduction of the Atiyah-Manton multi-soliton ansatz in a unit cell [6]. The chiral quark soliton model (CQSM) can be interpreted as the soliton bag model including not only valence quarks but also the vacuum sea quark polarization effects explicitly [16, 17, 18, 19]. The model provides correct observables of a nucleon such as mass, electromagnetic value, spin carried by quarks, parton distributions and octet, decuplet SU(3) baryon spectra [20, 21]. ----------------- Also, Simone Speziale is proposing a 3d double tetra as a spinfoam structure [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...706.1534v1.pdf[/url] Coupling gauge theory to spinfoam 3d quantum gravity Simone Speziale June 11, 2007 ---------------- I have already figured out (my blog) the smallest black hole would consist of 6 instantons and each would be limited to moving to 3 position. The smallest black hole would consist of 24 units. (S=A/4). Also, the smallest black hole can only grow by absorbing even numbers of quantas of energy. Odd numbers and fractions are not permitted. ---------------- From the above information I would be tempted to say that we could observe mini black holes at CERN. What is going on? Is the logic faulty? Is spinfoam doomed? Jal ---------------- It’s interesting that if we were to use .36 fm, (the average size of instantons found in ref. 11 is ¯_ ≈ 0.36 fm and their average separation is ¯R = (N/V )−1 4 ≈ 0.89 fm., and the BI parameter 2.763953198, [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/blogs/jal-58039/mini-black-holes-945/[/url] , we would get 2.763953198 * .36 = 1.0 fm which is the size of proton. Would this mean that the smallest possible black hole would be the size of a proton? This would make sense with the statements by Stephen D. H. Hsu and David Reeb Jal --------------- Marcus? Iwas looking over some of the other papers that you have been supplying for our attention. http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3688 Why the Standard Model Authors: Ali H. Chamseddine, Alain Connes (Submitted on 25 Jun 2007) ------------- http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3690 A Dress for SM the Beggar Authors: Ali H. Chamseddine, Alain Connes (Submitted on 25 Jun 2007 (v1), last revised 26 Jun 2007 ------- The question that comes to my mind..... Would not the most influential paper be the one that can supply the most usefull math approach? Since you are a retired mathematician, I assume you would be able to evaluate the importance of those 2 papers better than most. ---------- My understanding is that the above two papers are a condensed version of ftp://ftp.alainconnes.org/bookjune4.pdf I found something else that might be interesting. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0611/0611143v1.pdf[/url] Holographic Views of the World On the Occasion of Gerard ’t Hooft’s 60th Birthday 15 Nov 2006 So let’s go back to our undergraduate period (around 1997, just before the discovery of AdS/CFT correspondence). We can quite easily reconstruct some of Gerard’s first remarks to us concerning quantum black holes. • Black holes of the Planck scale should be indistinguishable from elementary particles. --------------------- [quote] jal It’s interesting that if we were to use .36 fm, (the average size of instantons found in ref. 11 is ¯_ ≈ 0.36 fm and their average separation is ¯R = (N/V )−1 4 ≈ 0.89 fm., and the BI parameter 2.763953198, [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/blogs/jal-58039/mini-black-holes-945/[/url] , we would get 2.763953198 * .36 = 1.0 fm which is the size of proton. [/quote] That seems to be pretty indistinguishable. Diameter...Area sphere......Area circle … # quantas ….. Area ratio c/s (S) 2.763953198.....24 .............. 6 ..................... 6 ……………. ¼ …………. 1.0 fm 5.5279064....... 96 ............. 24 ................... 24 ………………. ¼ …… 1.99 fm 11.55812.........84 ............. 96 .....................96 …………… ¼ ….. 4.16 fm If we go to the next two stable sizes of black holes with .36 fm we get 1.99 fm and 4.16 fm Do those two numbers relate to something that you can recognize? --------------- Jim Kata! Thanks for the act of love... that is the only way that I can improve my learning. From [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0609/0609024v3.pdf[/url] Observation of Incipient Black Holes and the Information Loss Problem Tanmay Vachaspati and Dejan Stojkovic 07 june 2007 I can see that there is still a lot to learn about black holes. Could you help me by explaining Appendix A and B? Does it conflict with my approach or with what Stephen D. H. Hsu and David Reeb said? ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.3359v1.pdf[/url] Three-Dimensional Gravity Reconsidered Edward Witten 22 June 2007 [B]Can I assume that his approach has enough symmetry to accommodate ALL approaches to try to build a working model. [/B] References p.6 .. 1.3. A Non-Classical Restriction p.7 …1.4. Plan Of This Paper ------------- jal ---------------- [quote]...unrealistic assumptions[/quote] [b]I do not have a problem with Edward Witten’s paper.[/b] “We aim to solve three-dimensional gravity with Lambda < 0, at some distinguished values of ℓ/G at which it makes sense.” [b]Lambda < 0 is assumed in order to be able to look behind the event horizon. This is then equated to the central charge c and also equated to be a negative constant.[/b] “The values that emerge – with the help of a small sleight of hand in the choice of the gauge group for the Chern-Simons theory –are interesting. They are the values at which cL and cR are integer multiples of 24, and complete holomorphic factorization of the dual CFT is conceivable. More generally, the same is true for the left- and right-moving central charges cL and cR. So the central charges of the dual CFT cannot depend on a continuously variable parameter ℓ/G. It must be [18] that the theory only makes sense for specific values of ℓ/G. According to our interpretation of three-dimensional gravity, it is described by a conformal field theory with c = 24k and no primary field other than the identity of dimension less than k + 1”. [b]c = 24k ???meaning??? In 2d the smallest value that can be assumed is a value that can make an event horizon and it would have a negative energy of 24. An outside observer would not be able to observe anything else on the “brick wall” of the event horizon. How does that conflict with what I have been saying, “The Quantum Minimum Length Structure would be a sphere of 24 units?” Are there objections to having c = 24k?[/b] Jal ---------------------- [quote]jal How does that conflict with what I have been saying, “The Quantum Minimum Length Structure would be a sphere of 24 units?” Are there objections to having c = 24k?[/quote] I guess the only problem is that it shows up toooooo much. [url]http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/06/more_mysteries_of_the_number_2.html[/url] More Mysteries of the Number 24 Posted by John Baez ------------ jal ---------------- [quote]marcus I hope this confuses you as much as it does other people[/quote] Darn!....I thought that I was getting to understand... Then here comes Takashi Tamaki and drops a monkey wrench into the calculations in my blog. I'll put him in my blog but I'll wait before changing my blog. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.0341v1.pdf[/url] Considering boundary conditions for black hole entropy in loop quantum gravity Takashi Tamaki 04 July 2007 We argue for black hole entropy in loop quantum gravity (LQG) by taking into account the interpretation that there is no other side of the horizon. This gives new values for the Barbero-Immirzi parameter ( = 0.367 • • • or 0.323 • • •) which are fairly larger than those considered before ( = 0.261 • • • or 0.237 • • •). We also discuss its consequences for future experiments. ---------- jal

SIZES OF FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES

EXPERIMENTAL LIMITS ON THE SIZES OF FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES [b]10−18cm that is what I have been using.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0611/0611005v1.pdf[/url] QCD, New Physics and Experiment Giuseppe Nardulli 01 Nov 2006 Abstract. I give a summary of Section E of the seventh edition of the Conference Quark confinement and the hadron spectrum. Papers were presented on different subjects, from spectroscopy, including pentaquarks and hadron structure, to the quest for physics beyond the standard model [b]For EM interactions one gets limit on the mass of a heavy electron: m∗ = 308±56 GeV and for the finite size of the electron a limit of = 1253.2±226 GeV, corresponding to a size r ≈ 16×10−18cm . For EW interaction the most stringent limits for the quarks are rq < 2.2×10−18cm, for the leptons rl < 0.9×10−18 cm, and the form factor puts a limit on the electron size of re < 28×10−18cm.[/b] Finally a scheme to describe all fundamental particles as extended objects of a finite geometrical size was presented by , J¨urgen Ulbricht. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0111/0111302v3.pdf [/url] Putting non Point-like Behavior of Fundamental Particles to Test Irina Dymnikova∗, Alexander Sakharov†, J¨urgen Ulbricht† and Jiawei Zhao 24 March 2003 Abstract. We review the experimental limits on those hypothetical interactions where the fundamental particles could exhibit non point-like behavior. In particular we have focused on the QED reaction measuring the differential cross sections for the process e+e− → () at energies around 91 GeV and 209 GeV with data collected from the L3 detector from 1991 to 2001. With a global fit L3 set lower limits at 95% CL on a contact interaction energy scale parameter _ > 1.6 TeV, [b]which restricts the characteristic QED size of the interaction region to Re < 1.2 ?10−17 cm. All the interaction regions are found to be smaller than the Compton wavelength of the fundamental particles.[/b] This constraint we use to estimate a lower limit on the internal density of particle-like structure with the de Sitter vacuum core. Some applications of obtained limits to the string and quantum gravity scales are also discussed. Self-gravitating particle-like structure with de Sitter core is generic. It is obtained from the Einstein equations with the boundary conditions of the de Sitter vacuum at r = 0 and Minkowski vacuum at the infinity. For the case of maximum possible scale for ρvac at which a particle could get its mass, it gives model independent constraints on sizes of vacuum cores for leptons which are re > 4.9 x10−26 cm, rμ > 8.3×10−27 cm, r_ > 3.3×10−27 cm. [b]Note: Which of course would be impossible to happen since it is smaller than the radius of the Compton wavelength. (QED). Therefore, there is a transition to QCD that need to be discovered. The Smallest possible black hole-1.0 fm (proton) must be able to take QCD into consideration. The smallest black hole has got to be bigger than the smallest wavelength that can exist. How do we determine the smallest wavelength from quarks, gluons (QCD)? [/b] ----------------- There are proposals to experimentally verify the quantum minimum length scale. [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-lat/pdf/0610/0610027v1.pdf[/url] A STRATEGY TO STUDY CONFINEMENT IN QCD Adriano DI GIACOMO 03 Oct 2006 We have argued that the only natural explanation of experimental data on confinement is that confinement is related to a symmetry, and therefore that the deconfining phase transition is an order disorder transition, and not a crossover. ----------------- QCD uses a "bag model" however, we do not know What is in the "bag". Is it the whole nucleon ..... a proton .... a neutron .... quarks .... gluons ....???? Do they affect each other like many bags in proximity? How do they interact? Are waves real? This is the frontier of science. This is the frontier of our knowledge. [url]http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/Confinement%20Paper.pdf[/url] Yang-Mills magnetic sources as the foundation of baryons, mesons, and QCD confinement Jay R. Yablon Volume integration over P, and application of Gauss’ law to the surface of the integration volume, demonstrates that there can never be a net flux of gluons or individual quarks across the boundary, but that quark / antiquark pairs do cross the boundary in the form of short-range mesons. This may provide an exact analytical solution of confinement and to the so-called Yang-Mills “mass gap” problem. p. 14 (As regards confinement, we have been careful never to make any statement about the “size” of the integration surface under consideration, whether on the order 1 Fermi, or a small fraction of a Fermi. The various integral relationships in (6.2) do not at all depend on how large or how small one makes the volume or the surface. They only depend on the fact that one has a baryon source density P, and one establishes a closed surface over this density.) ------------------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0612/0612146v3.pdf[/url] Diquark and light four-quark states Ailin Zhang1, Tao Huang2 and Tom G. Steele 12 July 2007 Four-quark states with different internal clusters are discussed within the constituent quark model. -------------------- [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/12000/slac-pub-12632.html[/url] SLAC-PUB-12632 Novel QCD Phenomena Stanley J. Brodsky∗† Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94309 june 2007 -------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0312/0312003v3.pdf[/url] Standard Model Masses and Models of Nuclei Alejandro Rivero 10 May 2004

WHAT IS THE SIZE OF A PHOTON?

WHAT IS THE SIZE OF A PHOTON? If you believe in extra dimensions then the size would be limited by the size of the extra dimension. [URL]http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/tables/sxxx.pdf [/URL] p.5 Constraints on the radius of extra dimensions for the case of two flat dimensions of equal radius r < 90-660 nm (astrophysics; limits depend on technique and assumptions) r < 0:22 mm, CL = 95% (direct tests of Newton's law; cited in Extra Dimensions review) ----------- Therefore, a maximum size of a photon would be either .22mm or 660nm. If you want to assume (without experimental evidence) a way of making a bigger photon squeeze into a small hole (dimension) then you do not have any constraints on the size of a photon. -------------- [b]As far as I can figure out, everyone assumes that an emitter of a photon cannot emit a photon bigger than what it is. Also, an absorber of a photon has got to be bigger than the photon. Until we get experimental confirmation to the contrary this can be assumed to be a FIRST PRINCIPLE.[/b] So, from [URL]http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/tables/bxxx.pdf[/URL] PROTON Charge radius = 0.875 ± 0.007 fm NEUTRON Mean-square charge radius R^2n_ = 0.1161 ± 0.0022 fm2 (S = 1.3) ----------------- Therefore, we have another kind of constraint on the size of a photon. The size of a proton/neutron. How small can a photon get? If quarks are proven to emit photons then this would be determined by the sizes of quarks. WE HAVE NOT YET REACHED DOWN TO THE SCALE OF 10^-18. CERN IS GOING TO DO THAT. Therefore, it is only speculation to assume that real or virtual photon goes to the planck scale. ---------------- [URL]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0611/0611005v1.pdf [/URL] QCD, New Physics and Experiment Giuseppe Nardulli 01 Nov 2006 Abstract. I give a summary of Section E of the seventh edition of the Conference Quark confinement and the hadron spectrum. Papers were presented on different subjects, from spectroscopy, including pentaquarks and hadron structure, to the quest for physics beyond the standard model [B]For EM interactions one gets limit on the mass of a heavy electron: m∗ = 308±56 GeV and = 1253.2±226 GeV, correspondingfor the finite size of the electron a limit of to a size r ≈ 16×10−18cm . For EW interaction the most stringent limits for the quarks are rq < 2.2×10−18cm, for the leptons rl < 0.9×10−18 cm, and the form factor puts a limit on the electron size of re < 28×10−18cm.[/B] Finally a scheme to describe all fundamental particles as extended objects of a finite geometrical size was presented by , J¨urgen Ulbricht. -------------- QUARKS [URL]http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/quarks_q000.pdf[/URL] I’m sure that there are and that there will be other experiments that will narrow the possible size range that a photon can have. See my blog for more references.

WHY? – UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT

WHY? – UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT There are thousands of good teachers who can teach you Quantum Mechanics and how to do the calculation. Michael Fowler’s home page [url]http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~mf1i/home.html [/url] His classes fall 2006 [url]http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/751.mf1i.fall02/ [/url] ------------------ Reading Gerard 't Hooft’s papers is like reading a corporate statement or a vision statement. Well worth the effort. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4572[/url] The Grand View of Physics Gerard 't Hooft [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4568[/url] Emergent Quantum Mechanics and Emergent Symmetries Gerard 't Hooft -------------- Here is my simple explanation on WHY we have UNCERTAINTY – SPIN - CONFINEMENT. (If the images do not come up it is due to too much traffic... come back later) We start with the First Principle, Minimum Length, and the resulting structure. [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/energy_nodes_2.gif[/img] An energy node can only be at position #1 or position #3. That translate to 50% uncertainty. Position # 1 and # 4 are too close and violate the minimum length. If it helps you, think of position #1 as real or positive and position #3 as imaginary or negative. You might argue that there could be an energy node at position #1 and also at position #3. Correct! It could! But each of them would have a different center of spin/orbit. If both of them had the same center of spin/orbit then you would need to identify them as if they had different spin/orbit since that would be the only way to tell them apart. They both would behave as if they had different center of spin/orbit. [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/qmls_1.gif[/img] -------------- In 2d we have a square, 4 sides. However, at the quantum level we have six possible positions as show with 2d packing. That would be 6j. It is still 50% uncertainty. [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/LIGHT/min_length.GIF[/img] In 3d we have a cube, 6j. However, at the quantum level we can have 2 cubes imbedded and we end up with 12j, which is 3d packing. You still have 50% uncertainty. [img]http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/keplerconjecture_1000.gif[/img] Therefore, from first principle of minimum length and the resulting structure we see that the location of the energy nodes give us quantum uncertainty, spin and confinement. Confinement is simply keeping the hex. or cubic packing formation. That is why you can use the double cube or double tetra to do calculations. [img] http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/tetraincube.gif[/img] ------------- I want to end this post with a puzzling question as shown by the Ashoori group. Their picture of the electron makes it obvious that there is a structure to the electrons. [url]http://www.physorg.com/news104156028.html[/url] It's also obvious that the electons are doing something so that they can be seen because that is not a picture at 10^-18 as indicated at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_mag...de_%28length%29[/url] -------------- Home page [url]http://electron.mit.edu/[/url] Focus of research of Ashoori group [url]http://www.4engr.com/research/catalog/209/index.html [/url] “This experiment is technically demanding; large bandwidth signals (from around 1 kHz to 1 Ghz)” -------------- This would indicate that the electron has got to be big enough to absorb/reflect that bandwidth It has to do with our understanding of what electrons and photons can or cannot do. It has to do with our understanding of the “quark sea” and the “drip line” Is the electron size 10^-18 or more? [b]Is the pattern that was created a confirmation that there is a simple symmetrical structure at 10^-18[/b] that is reflected in the position/structure of the electrons as shown by the Ashoori group? What kind of dynamics are going on inside the electron that make it possible for us to “see” it at larger scale? ---------- [url]http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html [/url] Remember that the electron itself is a very small particle, less in size than the size of a point (a pixel) in the figure. However, the "wavefunction" associated with the particle typically may extend over a scale of tens of nanometers. At any time, the square magnitude of the wavefunction plotted in the figure would be proportional to the probability of detecting the particle at that point, if the whole plane was covered with electron detectors which would be activated at that instant in time. Only one of those detectors would then "click", with the corresponding probability. The wavefunction will then instantly lose its meaning and is said to "collapse". How the electron itself moves (whether it passes through one of the slits or both - or how the wavefunction is related to the actual electron) is a question that is not well defined in quantum mechanics - some would say that it is not a valid question. In the following presentation [url]http://electron.mit.edu/scanning/ [/url] the Ashoori group is claiming to have a picture of the ACTUAL energy density. (NOT the "wavefunction" associated with the particle). Something does not add up. We should not be able to “see” the energy density of something as small as 10^-18. ----------- I found it …. Don’t forget to look at page 16. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1686v1.pdf High-resolution spectroscopy of two-dimensional electron systems O. E. Dial_, R. C. Ashoori_, L. N. Pfei_ery, K. W. Westy July 11, 2007 My nose tells me that someone is about to become famous and filthy rich. More of their work is at http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/as/Ashoori

Topological order - string-net+LQG

Topological order - string-net condensation + loop quantum gravity In physics, topological order is a new kind of order (a new kind of organization of particles) in a quantum state that is beyond the Landau symmetry-breaking description. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_order[/url] Why is topological order important? Landau symmetry-breaking theory is a cornerstone of condensed matter physics. It is used to define the territory of condensed matter research. The existence of topological order appears to indicate that nature is much richer than Landau symmetry-breaking theory has so far indicated. The exciting time of condensed matter physics is still ahead of us. Some suggest that topological order (or more precisely, string-net condensation) has a potential to provide a unified origin for photons, electrons and other elementary particles in our universe. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String-net_condensation[/url] For strings labeled by the positive integers, string-nets are the spin networks studied in loop quantum gravity. This has led to the proposal by Wen and Levin, [1] , and Smolin, Markopolou and Tomasz, [2] that loop quantum gravity's spin networks can give rise to the standard model of particle physics through this mechanism, along with fermi statistics and gauge interactions. [b]To date, a rigorous derivation from LQG's spin networks to Wen's spin lattice has yet to be done.[/b] We did a discussion at [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=161868 [/url] The universe as a "string-net liquid" ------------------- [url]http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/ [/url] Quantum field theory of many-body systems Xiao-Gang Wen Chapter 8 Topological and Quantum Order – Beyond Landau’s Theories The concept of topological/quantum order allows us to have a new classification of orders. A quantum order is simply a non-symmetry breaking order in a quantum system, and a topological order is simply a quantum order with finite energy gap. p.69 First quantization is a description of a quantum system using wave functions. Second quantization is another description of a quantum system using operators. In the second quantization we do not need to write down a wave function explicitly. To obtain a second quantization description of the boson system and to avoid writing the complicated N-variable symmetric functions, we combine the Hilbert spaces with all the different numbers of bosons together to form a total Hilbert space. -------- See [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0611197[/url] Quantum Graphity Tomasz Konopka, Fotini Markopoulou, Lee Smolin (Submitted on 17 Nov 2006) ) “We argue (but do not prove) that under certain conditions the spins in the system can arrange themselves in regular, lattice-like patterns at low temperatures. When the graph is frozen, the model is closely related to a model of Levin and Wen [4, 5, 6] which has emergent gauge degrees of freedom.” p.7 “…it is helpful to first consider the graph of “on” links to be frozen in a particular configuration, say a regular cubic lattice where the minimal loops in the graph are plaquettes. In this case, these terms reduce to the rotor model of Levin and Wen [6]” ------------ Xiao-Gang Wen ends his book with the following: “What is the origin of gauge field – geometrical or dynamical? What is the origin of Fermi statistics – given or emergent? In this book, we favor the dynamical and emergent origin of gauge bosons and fermions. The gauge bosons and the Fermi statistics may just be collective phenomena of quantum many-boson systems, and nothing more.” ---------------- Warning this is a text book. --------------- Topological order is being used to develop new applications. [url]http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/~trebst/research.html[/url] We aim at finding a minimal model system with a topological phase that could be realized by solid-state devices such as Josephson junction arrays or complex materials. ----------------- A little bit of review of what I have been saying. Who knows???? You might be able to add something to Topological order. Why would anyone refuse to look into the relationship that could be revealed by applying minimum length to a quantum structure? That is why we need the table of diameter, surface area, and number of nodes/particles. [url]http://www.rkm.com.au/CALCULATORS/CALCULATOR-circle-sphere.html [/url] GEOMETRY: CIRCLE & SPHERE How to use the program. Enter an even number for the surface area and it gives you the diameter (minimum length) Diameter ……………….surface area … # of nodes 0.7978845608028654 …………. 2 ………………1 0.9772050238058398 …………. 3 ………………1 ---------------------------------------------------- [b]This is the first thing that becomes obvious. A surface area of less than 4 units produces a diameter that is less than the minimum length. 1.1283791670955125 …………. 4 ………………1 The smallest diameter that a sphere can have is 1.1283791670955125 unit and with a node/particle that is a one length in size. The smallest surface area that a sphere can have is 4 unit length. 1. This is the first mystery that is resolved. You cannot have a structure that is made up of minimum length and have all of the measurements equal to minimum length. 2. The second mystery that is resolved is Why is entropy = information = A/4 There is a total area of 4 and only one node/particle that can exist to transmit information. Why is there only one node/particle on that surface? There is room for another unit size node/particle at the other pole (other side of the sphere). Okay! Let’s occupy/fill that position with a node/particle. 3. Third mystery solved. By filling the second position with a node/particle you are preventing any kind of motion. (Explain how those two nodes/particles can move without violation the minimum length.) Until we get to doing dynamics (how things can move) with a model, we must stay with 4 unit lengths for every node/particle on the sphere. Therefore, for every node/particles we need to have 3 empty nodes (unit lengths) You have also, discovered another relationship. 4. The reason for uncertainty at the quantum level. The node/particle can occupy either one of those two positions and there is no way of being able to determine which of those two positions that the node/particle happens to be occupying. Do you want to continue with the table and discover more relationships? We know that we need 3 empty nodes for every node/particle but I will do the table for every unit increase of surface area up to 13. We will need a model that we can use/analyze when we explore the transfer of information.[/b] Diameter ……………….surface area … # of nodes/particles 0.7978845608028654 …………. 2 ………………1 0.9772050238058398 …………. 3 ………………1 [b]1.1283791670955125 ………. 4 ……………1[/b] 1.2615662610100801 …………. 5 ……………… ? 1.381976597885342 …………… 6 ……………. ? 1.4927053303604616 …………. 7 ……………. ? [b]1.5957691216057308 ……. 8 ……………. 2[/b] 1.692568750643269 ………….. 9 ……………. ? 1.7841241161527712 ………… 10 …………… ? 1.8712051592547776 ………… 11 …………… ? [b]1.9544100476116797 …… 12 …………… 3 2.0342144725641096 ………… 13 …………… ? and here is 2.763953195770684 ………….. 24 ……………. 6 3.9088200952233594 ……….. 48 …………… 12[/b] [b]5. Mystery solved. Did you know that when studying black holes that the number of nodes/particles that are used is 6 and that represent 3d? 6. The minimums for a black hole are 2.763953195770684 ………….. 24 ……………. 6 7. Did you know that when they study the big bang that they have discovered that there is no singularity? There is a bounce. The bounce occurs at 24 units. This just happens to be the surface area of a 2d sphere that contains 6 nodes/particles. 8. minimum length give a cut off for the spectrum without having to do anything. 9. Gravity cannot go to a minimum of one unit (planck length) 10. Minimum length imposes a structure. The challenge is to find the model that is reflecting our observations. Remember, minimum length would apply to ALL models including models with extra dimensions and the structure inside those dimensions.[/b] ----------------- p. 472 fig.10.9 [b]Xiao-Gang Wen uses 2 cubes with position #1 plaquete is shared by both cube OR is there two plaquete in the same position. Therefore, he has 11 positions for the fermions. If he was to expand to more than two cubes then all the plaquete positions would be shared/doubled. There would never be a certainty of minimum distance between the plaquetes or a certainty on the number of plaquetes. Cubic packing does not preserve the identity of each plaquete. Cubic packing does not preserve minimum length. His math might works (I’ll let others decide) but his picture of having cubes (a cubic lattice) will not work but it is close to being right. (after all, cubic packing and hex. packing preserve the volume.) However, by using hex. packing in 3d packing you get the 12 plaquete positions and they would not be shared and you would be able to keep minimum distances and the math should work with that picture. As a result, you can use the double tetra, (LQG, spin nets) because in the center of the spinning plaquetes is the double tetra.[/b] -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0703/0703097v1.pdf [/url] New directions in Background Independent Quantum Gravity Fotini Markopoulou 20 March 2007 1) Is spacetime geometry and general relativity fundamental or emergent? 2) Is spacetime geometry, if present, dynamical or fixed? Our main focus in this chapter is a new, fourth, category that is currently under development and constitutes a promising and previously unexplored direction in background independent quantum gravity. [b]This is pre-geometric background independent approaches to quantum gravity.[/b] These start with an underlying microscopic theory of quantum systems in which no reference to a spatiotemporal geometry is to be found. Both geometry and hence gravity are emergent. --------------- [b]Note: Minimum length scale imposes a geometry.[/b] Xiao-Gang Wen said in his book that his model could be applied to QCD but he did not develop it. [b]Is Lee Smolin trying to make the link of LQG and QCD and Topological order ? [/b] ----------------- Look at his Physics talks and you tell me. [url]http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/Talks.html [/url] • Particle physics from quantum gravity (Spring 2006) • Emergence of chiral matter from quantum gravity ('t Hooft conference, summer 2006)

HOW TO BUILD A UNIVERSE

How to build a universe. 1. Figure out how our universe is built 2. Determine if the data from CERN tell us that the smallest building blocks are at 10^-18. 3. Figure out why #12 keeps cropping up in so many approaches. 4. Figure out the dynamics. ---------- For a more detail explanation, on how to build a universe, see: [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3276[/URL] [B]Group field theory as the microscopic description of the quantum spacetime fluid: a new perspective on the continuum in quantum gravity[/B] Authors: Daniele Oriti (Submitted on 17 Oct 2007) We introduce the group field theory (GFT) formalism for non-perturbative quantum gravity, and present it as a potential unifying framework for several other quantum gravity approaches, i.e. loop quantum gravity and simplicial quantum gravity ones. We then argue in favor of and present in detail what we believe is a new GFT perspective on the emergence of continuum spacetime from discrete quantum structures, based on the idea of quantum space as a condensed matter system. In particular, group field theories can offer the context and the tools to realize explicitly the intriguing idea of spacetime as a condensate of fundamental building blocks and of continuum geometry as an emergent concept. p.13 All this may be interesting and indeed it is intriguing to speculate of a unifying framework for all discrete quantum gravity approaches, that encompasses loop quantum gravity structures as well as simplicial quantum gravity ones. But is it useful? p. 14 This exercise has two purposes. 1) It may help in acquiring a new understanding of the insights the different approaches provide, and in analyzing their mutual compatibility, and possibly also suggests ways in which what we have learned from one approach can contribute to solving presently open problems of another or common to all. 2) It is needed in order to check whether a single coherent picture of quantum gravity, patching together all these various insights and results, is possible, within the GFT setting. If it turns out that, indeed, it is possible, then we believe it would be arguably the best thing to use it and develop it further. ------------- [B]This is the approach which I can best understand since it is this concept that I have been advocating in my blog.[/B] -------------- Daniele Oriti, and Tamer Tlas are using the fundamental building blocks of quantum space in their latest paper to find “dynamics”. [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2679[/URL] A New Class of Group Field Theories for 1st Order Discrete Quantum Gravity Authors: Daniele Oriti, Tamer Tlas (Submitted on 14 Oct 2007) p. 11 Notice that there is almost nothing in the above choices that can select any specific dynamics of the geometric data (B variables and group elements, say) at the level of the individual Feynman diagram. The only dynamical ingredient above is the choice of a certain relation between them, but nothing seems to dictate, at the level of the GFT action, the individual dynamics of each set of variables. p. 46 Our results, as we have discussed, support the view of GFTs as local and discrete 3rd quantizations of gravity, providing a nice field theoretic description of the quantum dynamics of the fundamental building blocks of quantum space. Even more importantly, maybe, the new models, and possible modifications of the same, seem to provide the long sought for explicit unifying framework for spin foam/loop quantum gravity and simplicial quantum gravity approaches (quantum Regge calculus and dynamical triangulations). Looking at these different approaches from the proposed common GFT framework can offer, we hope, new possibilities for mutual enrichment and cross-fertilization between the various lines of research that are currently pursued as separate avenues toward a common goal, in particular regarding the outstanding issue of the continuum and semiclassical approximation of the discrete picture of quantum geometry they all seem to be based on. ------------- The amateurs might like the following [URL]http://www.desy.de/f/hera/engl/index.html [/URL] Traveling to the heart of matter with HERA ----------- I've just read Quantum field theory of many-body systems Xiao-Gang Wen His web page [URL]http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/ [/URL] I thought that his book might be easier than his papers. hehehe It's a text book. I did get to learn a few things. ------- Discussion at [URL]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1432106#post1432106[/URL] In order to try to understand where Lee Smolin, Yidun Wan is coming from [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1548[/URL] Propagation and interaction of chiral states in quantum gravity Lee Smolin, Yidun Wan 34 pages, 30 figures (Submitted on 5 Oct 2007) I went back to one of their citation. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510052[/url] Geometry from quantum particles Authors: David W. Kribs, Fotini Markopoulou (Submitted on 11 Oct 2005) p. 3 A secondary goal of this paper is to address the low energy problem in background independent approaches to quantum gravity, namely the problem of extracting a semiclassical low energy geometry from a dynamical microscopic quantum geometry. That is, our results may also be useful to quantum theories of gravity with microscopic quantum geometry: the definition of a coherent degree of freedom we use can be applied, for example, to spin foams with a boundary to extract its effective particles (and, in fact, that is why it was originally considered in [8]). Our setup thus provides a new way to get to the much sought-after semiclassical limit. In future work, we hope to give an algorithmic construction of the class of microscopic dynamics that contains Poincar´e-invariant particles. p. 5 The aim will be to find global symmetries of a classical geometry at the level of particles, without starting with a quantum geometry. p. 8-9 A microscopic model of spacetime is successful if it has a good low-energy limit in which it reproduces the known theories, namely general relativity with quantum matter coupled to it. In the case of causal dynamical triangulations, impressive results show strong indications that this model has the desired features [5]. … one can first look for long-range propagating degrees of freedom (particles) and reconstruct the geometry from these (if they exist). The specific method we adopt is promising because it deals directly with quantum systems and coarsegrains a quantum system to its effective particles. Our discussion applies to such models with a boundary. p. 13 Finally, it is very important that the existence and properties of the noiseless subsystems depends entirely on the properties of the dynamics. As can be seen in the quantum information literature [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 23, 24, 25] and in the application of this method to quantum black holes [33], as well as the example in the Appendix, in concrete examples of noiseless subsystems their existence depends on having symmetries in the dynamics. -------------- [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon[/URL] The Sundance Approach Sundance preon model may avoid this by denying that preons are pointlike particles confined in a box less than 10−18 m, and instead positing that preons are extended 2-dimensional ribbon-like structures, not necessarily smaller than the elementary particles they compose, not necessarily confined in a small box as point particles preon models propose, and not necessarily "particle-like", but more like glitches and topological folds of spacetime that exist in three-fold bound states that interact as though they were point particles when braided in groups of three as a bound state with other particle properties such as mass and pointlike interaction arising as an emergent property so that their momentum uncertainty would be on the same order as the elementary particles themselves. [URL]http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Bilson_Thompson_S/0/1/0/all/0/1[/URL] Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson two papers [URL]arXiv:hep-th/0603022[/URL] [ps, pdf] Title: Quantum gravity and the standard model [URL]arXiv:hep-ph/0503213[/URL] [ps, pdf, other] Title: A topological model of composite preons ------------ It must be more than coincident that minimum length and the number 12 keeps appearing in almost all the approaches. The lecture, [URL]http://www.mediasite.com/Player/?p=6...ilson+thompson[/URL] indicates that there is still much work to do and indicates that in 3d you would need 2 groups of 3 branes that start with 6 initial positions and move to 6 other positions. (12). A lot of what is happening will be determined in the “dynamics” I would like to think that the nodes/plaquettes/quarks/preons/ kernel/whatever can only occupy a position that are at 60 degree from each other because that is the underlying structure. In 2d that would mean a possible 6 positions that the nodes can occupy and in 3d there would be 12 possible positions. (Hex packing) The quark models in the following reference seem to indicate/revealing hex packing as the obligatory underlying structure with a lattice spacing that still needs to be determined. Of course, the spacing is such that everything fits into the size of a proton. (approx.10^-14 meters for both the neutron and proton.) [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model [/URL] and from Particle data Group [URL]http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/reviews/quarkmodrpp.pdf[/URL] QUARK MODEL [URL]http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/quarks_q000.pdf[/URL] QUARK MASSES Updated March 2006 by A.V. Manohar (University of California, San Diego) and C.T. Sachrajda (University of Southampton) ------------ I'll be adding more info to this post as I get it. jal

BOUNCE IS BETTER THAN BANG

[b](note:5 insertions)[/b] The Schwarzschild radius of our universe is greater than the present size of our universe. It does not expand. It was always the same size. Changing the position of the particles inside the Scharzschild radius does not change the radius. What those particles are doing does not change the size of the radius. So, if you want to pretend that they all got together and made a big bang or that they all got together and bounced it still does not change the radius of the gravity. (Scharzschild radius) What is important is how far away is another universe. After all, none of them have come crashing into our universe. (A black hole) There is no evidence that even one particle is falling into our universe. Or, ???? is there? (Fred Hoyle would have liked to know.) The universe is expanding into it’s Scharzschild radius and by black hole logic it cannot expand any farther. If you want to use the logic of big bang then gravity cannot spread faster than the speed of light therefore, expansion, inflation cannot go faster than the speed of light. If it did then it would be equivalent to saying that something can get out of a black hole. Maybe the “math kids” have already done the calculations. “Bouncing” is so much easier since the Scharzschild radius of the universe has already been created by the 10^80 particles. Information going into a local black hole would not be lost since now we would be able to say that it is going to the Scharzschild radius of the universe. Nothing leaves the universe. ------- Reference from David M. Harrison: For a mass of 2.5 x 1053 kg, i.e. a 2 and a 5 followed by 52 zeroes kg, the Schwarzschild radius is about 17 billion light years. This huge mass is an estimate for the total mass of the universe. Also, given that the age of the universe is 15 billion years or so, 17 billion light years is awfully close to the size of the universe. Does this mean that the universe itself is a black hole? ---------- inserted 25 Oct I wish that I was a “math kid”. (The Schwarzschild radius is about 17 billion light years.) I’ve tried to do the calculations and I keep getting my units and zeros mixed up. The concept of our universe having an “edge”, (a 17 billion light years Schwarzschild radius.), is disturbing to me and is contrary to what I have been taught. I have seen a lot of papers about the event horizon but there seem to be a total denial by the science community to investigate the implications of this 17 billion light years Schwarzschild radius. The math says its there. The math and the logic for black holes has been studied. The Schwarzschild radius is a brick wall and nothing can get out. With no evidence of anything coming into our universe then we automatically get conservation of energy. This also implies that our local black holes are not consuming information but rather are a conduit of information flow to the 17 billion light years Schwarzschild radius. If there are 10^500 other universes, they are irrelevant until one of them falls into our universe or we fall into that other universe. We do have unexplained high energy produced by exploding stars. Could a possible explanation be that something came through the Schwarzschild radius and that “invisible connection”? A “math kid” might be able to give an explanation of why we cannot seen the connection between that exploding star and the Schwarzschild radius that is 2 BLY farther than the event horizon. The bounce rather than the bang becomes a lot more logical since there is a max. limit and min. limit for the particles to oscillate. Just like the gravity of the earth does not change by the movement of matter in the interior of the earth the gravity of the universe does not change by the movement of 10^80 particles. The Schwarzschild radius remains in its position. I don’t relish all of those thoughts but that does not mean that they should not be investigated in a more formal setting. I look forward to reading unbiased links or work in progress that you might have found. -------- inserted 28 Oct Does a bounce model require inflation when you can have the Schwarzschild radius do the job? [b]How to get rid of the Schwarzschild radius.[/b] Without inflation you cannot get out of the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius is given by Rs = 2GM/c^2 where G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object, and c is the speed of light. ------------- [url]http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/chindex.htm[/url] Astronomy Notes by Nick Strobel -------------- [url]http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/density.html[/url] How do Astronomer's Measure the Density of the Universe? ------------------- [url]http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae252.cfm?CFID=3897344&CFTOKEN=27312663[/url] How was the critical density of the universe calculated? ------------------ [url]http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/inf_lowden.html[/url] Low Density Inflationary Universes ------------- [url]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/age.html[/url] How do we measure the size and the age of the Universe? ----------- [url]http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?_handler_=HandleInitialGet&journal=cjp&volume=83&calyLang=fra&articleFile=p05-063.pdf [/url] Black-hole boundaries Ivan Booth I see that Chris Hillman has done a lot of explanations on black holes. I pulled out a few quotes from [b]Black-hole boundaries by Ivan Booth[/b] p. 10 Finally, before moving on to nonisolated horizons, we note that just as for Killing horizons, the phase space of isolated horizons includes more than just outer black-hole horizons. For example, all horizons in the fully extended Reissner–Nordström–deSitter spacetime qualify as isolated horizons —the outer black-hole horizon, the inner Cauchy horizon, the corresponding horizons associated with white holes, [B]and even the cosmological horizons.[/B] Further, since all Killing horizons are also isolated horizons, the examples of non-black-hole Killing horizons discussed in Sect. 2.2 are also examples of isolated horizons. Thus, while the isolated horizons conditions are sufficient to capture many of the properties of equilibrium black holes they are not exclusively black holes. In the next section, as we classify (potentially) nonisolated horizons, we will also consider the extra conditions that are necessary to distinguish between the various subclasses of horizons. p. 17 It is also of some interest to consider the physical circumstances under which the horizon “jumps” can occur. Again it is shown in ref. 35 that these jumps occur when the infalling matter is dense relative to 1/A, where A is the surface area of the horizon. For a solar-mass black hole this means that jumps occur only when the infalling matter is at least as dense as a neutron star while it is only when one gets to galactic-mass black holes that jumps could be generated by matter with the density of water. This suggests an answer to the question posed in relation to the Vaidya and Oppenheimer–Snyder spacetimes. Both evolutions can occur but “jumps” only happen under very extreme conditions (for small black holes). Essentially they correspond to new horizons forming outside of old ones. [B]note: The bigger the black hole the less is the density inside to keep the Schwarzschild radius[/B] p. 20 4.2. Laws of expansion As was discussed in Sect. 2.1, one of the best known properties of classical, causally defined, black holes is that, given the null energy condition, [b]they never decrease in area.[/b] …. It is also clear that if the null-energy condition is violated (as it would be by Hawking radiation) then we could have L_θ(_) > 0 and so a FOTH that decreases in area. --------- What is so interesting with the bounce model is that it gives a whole new prospective on the universe. Whether you call the spacetime fabric pixels, waves, strings, nodes, solitons, plaquettes, ZPE, quarks, preons, kernels or dark energy you still need a mechanism to make them. By studying the Schwarzschild radius of the universe you might be able to get a mechanism. First, let’s think of a microwave oven. You turn the power on and you get a pattern of standing waves. Turn the power off and the pattern disappears. The pattern appears because there is a continuous “feed” of the same wavelength to the cavity and the shape of the cavity determines the pattern. At first the pattern is chaotic but it quickly becomes a stable pattern. Now … think of the Schwarzschild radius of the universe. It is sending out a continuous “feed” of the same wavelength to the interior of the universe. We are now into its stable pattern phase. This phase could have started many bounces ago and will continue for many more bounces. I don’t know what would be the wavelength that the Schwarzschild radius of the universe would be sending out to bounce around inside and to create a stable pattern. That’s a job for the “math kids”. The stable pattern that exist must be between 10^-15 and 10^-18 because we cannot see them and quarks need to see them and interact with them. Let’s go to another simple example; A guitar string. It is fixed at both ends. Start a vibration at one end. If the initial vibrations that you start are at both ends at the same time then there will be the well understood wave interferences and the standing wave/soliton pattern will arise in the string. You need, in your model, the Schwarzschild radius of the universe to set up a Simple Quantum Structured Spacetime. Only a range of Schwarzschild radius will produce our spacetime that is at a quantum range of 10^-15 to 10-^18. It must be just about right size. Let’s see what the “math kids” can come up with. There is enough material here to write a good paper. (Even make a holographic universe.) ---------- inserted 30 Oct I have been able to find [url]http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/my/Y_Myung/10[/url] Black hole and holographic dark energy Yun Soo Myung Received. 06 February 2007 Last updated. 11 April 2007 Abstract. We discuss the connection between black hole and holographic dark energy. We examine the issue of the equation of state (EOS) for holographic energy density as a candidate for the dark energy carefully. This is closely related to the EOS for black hole, because the holographic dark energy comes from the black hole energy density. In order to derive the EOS of a black hole, we may use its dual (quantum) systems. Finally, a regular black hole without the singularity is introduced to describe an accelerating universe inside the cosmological horizon. Inspired by this, we show that the holographic energy density with the cosmological horizon as the IR cutoff leads to the dark energy-dominated universe with $ømega_{ m Lambda}=-1$. ------------ I would assume that, eventually, that there will be calculations made which include the bounce model. If you "click" on his name you will get 106 papers. ------- insert: 01 Nov [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0077 [/url] Dark Energy and Dark Gravity Authors: Ruth Durrer, Roy Maartens (Submitted on 1 Nov 2007) Observations provide increasingly strong evidence that the universe is accelerating. This revolutionary advance in cosmological observations confronts theoretical cosmology with a tremendous challenge, which it has so far failed to meet. Explanations of cosmic acceleration within the framework of general relativity are plagued by difficulties. General relativistic models are nearly all based on a dark energy field with fine-tuned, unnatural properties. There is a great variety of models, but all share one feature in common -- an inability to account for the gravitational properties of the vacuum energy. Speculative ideas from string theory may hold some promise, but it is fair to say that no convincing model has yet been proposed. An alternative to dark energy is that gravity itself may behave differently from general relativity on the largest scales, in such a way as to produce acceleration. The alternative approach of modified gravity (or dark gravity) provides a new angle on the problem, but also faces serious difficulties, including in all known cases severe fine-tuning and the problem of explaining why the vacuum energy does not gravitate. The lack of an adequate theoretical framework for the late-time acceleration of the universe represents a deep crisis for theory -- but also an exciting challenge for theorists. It seems likely that an entirely new paradigm is required to resolve this crisis. ----------- [url]http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html[/url] Is the big bang a black hole? One of the most exciting possibilities was considered by [B]C. Hellaby, in 1987 [/B]who envisaged the Universe being created as a string of beads of isolated while holes that explode independently and [B]coalesce into one Universe at a certain moment[/B]. This is all described by a single exact solution of general relativity. ----------- This would in effect be saying that we exist in a Schwarzschild universe and that the expansion of the universe is due to “more matter”, (another black hole) being added to our Schwarzschild universe black hole. It sounds like a good way to eliminate the “inflaton” and the massless scalar field. (Hey! Don’t knock this approach. It’s similar to having the earth bombarded by meteorites in its early formation and having the earth “sweeping” up the dust in its path.) I have not been able to find this paper. It’s probably because it is under a title which I could not recognize. [url]http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~cwh/mypub.html [/url] Charles Hellaby's Publications ------------- [b]IF I WAS TO WRITE A HANDBOOK “HOW TO MAKE A UNIVERSE” THE FOLLOWING TWO PAPER WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0077 [/url] Dark Energy and Dark Gravity --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0150[/url] Space-based research in fundamental physics and quantum technologies (An example) p. 7 Recent ground-based torsion-balance experiments [58] tested the gravitational inverse-square law at separations between 9.53 mm and 55 μm, probing distances less than the dark-energy length scale _d = 4p~c/ud _ 85 μm, with energy density ud _ 3.8 keV/cm3. It was found that the inverse-square law holds down to a length scale of 56 μm and that an extra dimension must have a size less than 44 μm (similar results were obtained by [59]). These results are important, as they signify the fact that modern experiments reached the level at which dark-energy physics can be tested in a laboratory setting; they also provided a new set of constraints on new forces [60], making such experiments very relevant and competitive with particle physics research. (59) [url]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhRvL..98t1101T[/url] Nul test of Newtonian Inverse-Square Law at Submillimeter Range with a dual-modulation torsion pendulum (60) [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611223[/url] Particle Physics Implications of a Recent Test of the Gravitational Inverse Square Law ----------- p. 8 The Inverse-Square Law Experiment in Space (ISLES) is a proposed experiment whose objective is to perform a highly accurate test of Newton’s gravitational law in space [61]. ISLES combines the advantages of the microgravity environment with superconducting accelerometer technology to improve the current ground-based limits in the strength of violation [62] by four to six orders of magnitude in the range below 100 μm. The experiment will be sensitive enough to probe large extra dimensions down to 5 μm and also to probe the existence of the axion18 which, if it exist, it expected to violate the inverse-square law in the range accessible by ISLES. jal

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

[color=blue] inserted: #1 15 Nov.; #2 20 nov.; #3 25 nov.; #4 4Dec.; #5 6 Dec; #6 09 Dec.; #7 12 March 08[/color] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770 [/url] An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything Authors: A. Garrett Lisi (Submitted on 6 Nov 2007) ----------- So…. You are a beginner … you have not been following the discussions … You want to know what is it all about? ALL ENTRIES [url]http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~fpfender/papers/AMS.pdf[/url] Kissing numbers, sphere packings, and some unexpected proofs FLORIAN PFENDER_ and G¨U NTER M. ZIEGLER April 19, 2004 The simple discussion is at [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=198717[/url] Layman's explanation wanted A simple example: Are you capable of reading a knitting pattern? You need to know the symbols for each action of the needles and when you apply that action a pattern will emerge. The needles are flying off into the 3rd dimension and picking up the threads and leaving the threads in a 2d pattern. There are moves that cannot be done. Talk to a grandma. E8 is a template for a knitting pattern. The pattern exists in our perceived 3d. CERN will be able to look for the patterns that exist from 10^-15 to 10^-18. It will not be able to see the movement of the “needle” doing its dance that created the pattern. LQG will be needed to find out what the “needles” are doing. I cannot knit, I cannot do LQG and much less E8. [B]However, if A. Garrett Lisi succeeds in writing the knitting pattern, grandma will be able to knit it.[/B] --------- Ref.: Proton Mass m = 1.00727646688 ± 0.00000000013 u Mass m = 938.27203 ± 0.00008 MeV [ Charge radius = 0.875 ± 0.007 fm (diameter of about 1.6 to 1.7×10−15 m [1], and a mass of 938.27231(28) MeV/c2 (1.6726 × 10−27 kg), 1.007 276 466 88(13) u) Mean life τ >10^31 to 10^33 years ------------ If you are still interested, open and read his paper then read the conversations in the following links. You will be surprised on how much you understand. Just remember that the professors have a heavy work load and might not answer your questions and that they have probably already thought of your idea and discussed it over a beer with their friends before you had your inspiration. ( heheh… that goes for everything that I have been saying in my blog too) Keep watching and enjoying. ---------- [b]We are into a new era.[/b] For the first time, a new approach has been proposed, by A. Garrett Lisi, and within hours, it has been picked up for discussion. The fact that the author, A. Garrett Lisi, has been participating in the discussion with the readers is the indication that we are into a new era. The first thing that becomes obvious is that A. Garrett Lisi will have to start teaching people how to use his approach. For his approach to make any impact it must be understood by other “math kids” and it must be used by other “math kids” to try to find answers. The second thing that becomes obvious is that A. Garrett Lisi will have to become a “salesman” to other “math kids” and to a larger audience, everyone down to “grandmothers”. The web has made it possible for people, from all walks of life, to access what used to be available only in the university and to a selected few “math kids”. How can anyone address such a large spectrum of understanding? First of all, it cannot be done by the efforts of one man. There is too much work and too little time in one day. It will require the efforts of a team of people from marketing, public relation, etc. This global approach will be the “thing” of the future. ---------- [color=blue]insert #1 Who is going to be able to show that the “other theories/models” fit into E8? “They” won’t do the work it has to be done by an E8 team. Here is what I found for a recent search of arxiv.org [url]http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Forkel_H/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] Holographic glueball structure Authors: Hilmar Forkel ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.2259v1.pdf [/url] The Pion Cloud: Insights into Hadron Structure Anthony W. Thomas Jefferson Lab, 12000 Jefferson Ave., Newport News VA 23606 USA and College of William and Mary, Williamsburg VA 23187 USA 14 Nov 2007 ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.1703v1.pdf [/url] Probing the nucleon structure with CLAS Highlights of recent results. Volker D. Burkert, for the CLAS collaboration. Jefferson Lab, Newport News, Virginia, USA November 12, 2007 ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.2048v1.pdf [/url] Nucleon Structure from Lattice QCD David Richards Jefferson Laboratory, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606, USA November 12, 2007[/color] -------- The discussion is happening at the following: [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=196498[/url] [url]http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html#c8778500176714763161[/url] [url]http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617[/url] ------------- [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=197271[/url] Gang of four--Lisi, Loll, Reuter, Rovelli--make trouble for stringery [color=blue]insert #2 [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=198717[/url] Layman's explanation wanted [quote]Garrett The G2 root system may also be described in three dimensions as the 12 midpoints of the edges of a cube | the vertices of a cuboctahedron. [/quote] Since this thread is for a layman’s explanation of trying to understand Garrett’s E8 Standard Model let’s look at how the particles could be distributed in a simple symmetric pattern? Let’s look at some possibilities by assuming that the proton is a sphere containing those “particles”. 1. You could divide the sphere into 12 inner spheres and divide the 240 “particles” into those 12 spheres. That makes 240/12 = 20 particles per sphere. 2. If you wanted to combine the 12 spheres and the vertex of LQG then you only need one double tetra in the center and assign a group of “particles” to the 8 vertex and to the 4 mid-point of the vertex, for a total of 12 groups of “particles” around the center. Each of those 12 vertex would then contain 20 “particles”. Adding tetras between the spheres could be done but there is the problem of “double counting” of “particles”. [b]3. There are other combinations that could be made. Garrett will eventually work out the ones that he feel works the best with E8 and tetras.[/b] [url]http://www.scienceu.com/library/articles/isometries/index.html [/url] Introduction to Isometries ------------ [url]http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~farb/papers/isoms.pdf [url] Isometries, rigidity and universal covers Benson Farb and Shmuel Weinberger December 31, 2006 ----------- [url]http://www4.ncsu.edu/~loek/research/res.html [/url] work on symmetric spaces ------------ [url]http://www.verbchu.com/crystals/patterns.htm[/url] Mapping the Hidden Patterns in Sphere Packing -------------- [url]http://www.mdstud.chalmers.se/~md7sharo/coding/main/node38.html [/url] Applying Coding Theory to Sphere Packing ------------- [url]http://math.berkeley.edu/~reb/papers/bcqs/bcqs.pdf[/url] A Monster Lie Algebra? We define a remarkable Lie algebra of infinite dimension, and conjecture that it may be related to the Fischer-Griess Monster group. The Lie algebra of this paper is indeed closely related to the monster simple group. In order to get a well behaved Lie algebra it turns out to be necessary to add some imaginary simple roots to the “Leech roots”. This gives the fake monster Lie algebra, which contains the Lie algebra of this paper as a large subalgebra. See “The monster Lie algebra”, Adv. Math. Vol. 83, No. 1, Sept. 1990, for details. ---------- Chapter 30 of “Sphere packing, lattices and groups” by Conway and Sloane, and Adv. in Math. 53 (1984), no. 1, 75–79. R. E. Borcherds, J. H. Conway, L. Queen and N. J. A. Sloane ---------- [url]http://www.research.att.com/~njas/doc/splag3.pdf[/url] Sphere packing, lattices and groups Material for third edition, Sept 16 1998 ------------- [url]http://www.research.att.com/~njas/index.html[/url] Neil J. A. Sloane: Home Page ========= Finally! …. I have reached the end of this simple presentation. ( I think) If you want to learn …. You got to continue searching. [b]I found that by doing a search for sphere packing and Isometries that I got the essentials and a simple way to begin to understand the math (Lie) which is used to do physics. It will not make you “a math kid’, but it will make one more person who can have some appreciation of what they are doing.[/b] I hope that all the people who know more than me have not found mistakes in this presentation which would lead the layperson astray. Good hunting in your quest for understanding! insert #3 I'm satisfied that there are enough different explanations for the layperson and the amateur. I did a search of the web. Youtube presentation/explanation of E8 [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ[/url] [b]Views: 101,702[/b] ------ An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything Hits 11,200 -------- E* Hits 2,330,000 --------- I think that our explanation was not covered by anyone else. Staying on the subject…. A new field of study … [b]neucleonagraphy.[/b] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallography[/url] ---------- insert: 4 Dec The following link has some very interesting images. It should make you wonder if the mechanisms and the pattern for these structures are also at a smaller scale (inside the proton). [url]http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/quasiphoton/[/url] Experimental Measurement of the Photonic Properties of Icosahedral Quasicrystals Weining Man, Mischa Megens, Paul M. Chaikin and Paul J. Steinhardt --------- [b]insert #5 6 dec (Not for beginners)[/b] Geometric Models: E8, SO(10), Which ansatzs will prove to be right by CERN? 1. Ali H. Chamseddine and Alain Connes , SO(10) [b]…. the spectral action associated with this noncommutative space unifies gravitation with the Standard Model at the unification scale. … Therefore the bare action we obtained and associated with the spectrum of the standard model is consistent within ten percent provided the cutoff scale is taken to be _ ∼ 1015 Gev at which the action becomes geometrical. [/b] 2. A. Garrett Lisi, E8 [b] … A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. ---------- Everyone is trying to get away from the Planck Scale. If the geometry is expressed at the QCD why would the cut off scale need to go to the unification scale? ------- References [url]http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/cosmology/82-calculations/index.html [/url] Calculation of Cosmological Baryon Asymmetry in Grand Unified Gauge Models (1982) [b]See [/b] 7. SO(10) Models [url]ftp://ftp.alainconnes.org/dresssm.pdf [/url] A DRESS FOR SM THE BEGGAR Ali H. Chamseddine and Alain Connes 27 June 2007 [b] plus all his related papers[/b] ---------- [b]insert #6 9 Dec [/b] Tony Smith has been at this long enough to produce a lot of input for E8 [url]http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/E8GLTSCl8xtnd.html[/url] -------- I must say that when I first got on the web, Tony's page was one of the first that I found. His explanations/presentations have improved .... a lot... My understanding improved only a little bit. Tony is moving too fast for me to catch up. ------- [b]insert #7 12 March08 If you do a search for, "Pierre Darriulat" ELEMENTARY PARTICLES; you will get a doc file that will give a good explanation of elementary particles and their interaction. It's worth saving for future reference. [/b] jal[/color] ------------ If you are a beginner …. You are starting at a good time …. Things are moving fast and changes are in the air …. You will be among the first to witness the transformations and the progress.

BOUNCE BETTER THAN BANG -REVISITED

[b]Schwarzschild radius = black hole = The Cosmic Horizon[/b] Fulvio Melia is not a "crank" and he is proposing a model of the universe that has a Schwarzschild radius. [URL]http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Melia_F/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=9c0202a79c0b7582 [/URL] Showing results 1 through 25 (of [B]74 total[/B]) for au:Melia_F [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4181 [/URL] The Cosmic Horizon Authors: Fulvio Melia (Submitted on 27 Nov 2007) Birkhoff’s theorem states that the metric inside an empty spherical cavity, at the center of a spherically symmetric system, must be equivalent to the flat-space Minkowski metric. Space must be flat in a spherical cavity even if the system is infinite. It matters not what the constituents of the medium outside the cavity are, as long as the medium is spherically symmetric. If one then imagines placing a spherically symmetric mass at the center of this cavity, according to Birkhoff’s theorem and its corollary, the metric between this mass and the edge of the cavity is necessarily of the Schwarzschild type. This consequence of the corollary to Birkhoff’s theorem is so important—and critical to the discussion in this paper—that it merits re-statement: the spacetime curvature of a wordline linking any point in the universe to an observer a distance R away may be determined by calculating the mass-energy enclosed within a sphere of radius R centered at the origin (i.e., at the location of the observer). The mass-energy outside of this volume has a net zero effect on observations made within the sphere. [b]There is little doubt that a cosmic horizon exists.[/b] It is required by the application of the corollary to Birkhoff’s theorem to an infinite, homogeneous medium, and there is some evidence that we have already observed phenomena close to it. However, it may be that observational cosmology is not entirely consistent with the condition R0 ≈ ct in the current epoc. If not, there must be some other reason for this apparent coincidence. Perhaps the assumption of an infinite, homogeneous universe is incorrect. Whatever the case may be, the answer could be even more interesting than the one we have explored here. ----------- There is no reason for me to use my words when it is said much better by Fulvio Melia. Therefore, I’m quoting, for those who do not want to take the time to read all of his paper and arguments. [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4810 [/URL] Dark Energy in Light of the Cosmic Horizon Authors: Fulvio Melia (Submitted on 29 Nov 2007) [b]In this paper, we examine the role played by our cosmic horizon R0 in our interrogation of the data, and reach the rather firm conclusion that the existence of a cosmological constant is untenable.[/b] The observations are telling us that R0 ≈ ct0, where t0 is the perceived current age of the Universe, yet a cosmological constant would drive R0 towards ct (where t is the cosmic time) only once, and that would have to occur right now. In contrast, scaling solutions simultaneously eliminate several conundrums in the standard model, including the ‘coincidence’ and ‘flatness’ problems, and account very well for the fact that R0 ≈ ct0. We show in this paper that for such dynamical dark energy models, either R0 = ct for all time (thus eliminating the apparent coincidence altogether), or that what we believe to be the current age of the universe is actually the horizon time th ≡ R0/c, which is always shorter than t0. Our best fit to the Type Ia supernova data indicates that t0 would then have to be ≈ 16.9 billion years. Though surprising at first, an older universe such as this would actually eliminate several other long-standing problems in cosmology, including the (too) early appearance of supermassive black holes (at a redshift > 6) and the glaring deficit of dwarf halos in the local group. Dark energy is often thought to be the manifestation of a cosmological constant, _, though no reasonable explanation has yet been offered as to why such a fixed, universal density ought to exist at this scale. It is well known that if _ is associated with the energy of the vacuum in quantum theory, it should have a scale representative of phase transitions in the early Universe—many, many orders of magnitude larger than _c. Nonetheless, though many in the cosmology community suspect that some sort of dynamics is responsible for the appearance of dark energy, until now the sensitivity of current observations has been deemed insufficient to distinguish between an evolving dark energy component and the simplest model of a time-independent cosmological constant _ (see, e.g., Corasaniti et al. 2004). [b]This conclusion, however, appears to be premature, given that the role of our cosmic horizon has not yet been fully folded into the interrogation of current observations.[/b] … it is now possible to accurately calculate the radius of our cosmic horizon, R0, defined by the condition … … This is the radius at which a sphere encloses sufficient mass-energy to turn it into a Schwarzschild surface for an observer at the origin of the coordinates … … What we infer to be the time since the Big Bang, is instead the “horizon” time th ≡ R0/c, which must be shorter than t0. As discussed in Melia (2008), this has some important consequences that may resolve several long-standing conflicts in cosmology. --------- The “math kids” have already done the calculations. I hope you enjoy the mental stimulation. ------- [b]insert: 3 Dec 2007[/b] String theories also, have bouncing universes and cosmic horizons. Their calculations are done within a “closed universe” which can only be interpreted as within a greater cosmic horizon. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506040[/url] Regular two-component bouncing cosmologies and perturbations therein Authors: V. Bozza, G. Veneziano (Submitted on 7 Jun 2005 (v1), last revised 8 Sep 2005 (this version, v2)) The first proposal of a bouncing string cosmology was the so-called Pre-Big Bang scenario [1], which exploits the non-minimal coupling of the dilaton in superstring theory to drive a Pre-Big Bang super-inflationary epoch, ending when higher-order derivatives and/or loop corrections become non-negligible. A second realization of the same idea was given by the ekpyrotic/cyclic scenario [2], inspired by Horawa–Witten braneworlds [3]. Here the pre-bounce is characterized by [b]the slow approach of two parallel branes, which eventually collide ... note: I would say two equal size black holes collide and the cosmic horizon is increased.[/b] ... and then move away, giving rise to an ordinary expanding universe on each of the two branes. Both scenarios, when viewed in a four-dimensional Einstein frame, can be represented by a universe bouncing from contraction to a standard expansion. He then goes on to say: “In the context of GR, the more conservative possibility is to study [b]closed universes[/b], where the bounce is possible without violating the NEC [10].” Note: I would say,”[b]within a cosmic horizon”[/b]. Later when he says, “… far from the bounce”, I would still put him within the “cosmic horizon” of the “collision of the black holes” that was originally created. --------- A review by Ruth Gregory. A theoretical physicist at Durham University, UK [url]http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/[/url] Paul J. Steinhardt Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang Paul J Steinhardt and Neil Turok Inflation was designed to solve some problems which can also be solved by the cyclic universe. Steinhardt and Turok the universe is simply a slice (known as a brane) through these extra dimensions, and the Big Bang was a collision of branes — a huge cosmic thunderclap. This model builds on an idea called M-theory, in which the strings live on two walls at the end of an 11D space–time. Applying the usual rules of string theory leads to a general picture in which these walls can move across the canyon separating them, and occasionally (every trillion years or so according to Steinhardt and Turok) slam into each other. It is this slamming together that is responsible for what we see as the Big Bang, although from a higher-dimensional point of view it is a collision rather than a singularity. [b]One message the authors communicate clearly is that we should never accept something simply because most people say it is true, but should constantly challenge and look for alternatives to any picture that cannot be rigorously proven.[/b] ----------- If you have been reading the papers then it is obvious that The Cosmic Horizon by Fulvio Melia has got as much observational info for it to be considered a serious candidate as any other model. If you support colliding branes then they would create a Cosmic Horizon. There is no reason to assume that our universe was the only one created by colliding branes. Therefore, the logic would be to assume that the “bulk” or “cosmos" is populated with 10^500 universes each having their own Cosmic Horizon. All would be irrelevant … until … they meet and mearged. -------- insert 9 Dec Some very interesting math calculation for the interior of the cosmic horizon. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0817[/url] Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces : the interior problem Authors: Miguel Campiglia, Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin (Submitted on 5 Dec 2007) We have therefore carried out a quantization of the interior of the Schwarzschild space-time using loop quantum gravity techniques. We have shown how the singularity is replaced by a bounce, and what conditions are needed for the bounce to occur in a regime of Planck energy. We have also outlined how one would construct the quantum theory for the model. It is interesting to compare the interior and exterior treatments. In the latter (and also in the complete space-time treatment of Kuchaˇr [2]) one is left with an quantum theory in which wavefunctions are arbitrary functions mass of the space-time, which is conserved. Here, while treating the interior as a cosmology, we are left with arbitrary functions of an observable, which evaluated on the initial data is determined entirely by c0. This is the variable conjugate to pc, whose initial value is associated with the mass of the Schwarzschild space-time. Therefore the two pictures are clearly reconciled. -------- I like to keep track of questions that are ignored or not answered in the discussion threads. ------ Let us see if we can reduce the amount of arm waving. 1. Present interpretations starts from a big bang and a singularity. The universe started from nothing and expanded to an infinite size in only 13.7 billion years. 2. Now we change the story and say that the universe started from a minimum size of 24 units, at the big bang and expanded to infinity in only 13.7 billion years. 3. Now we change the story a little bit more and we say that the universe is repeating this contracting and big bang cycle. You are asking that the infinite size of the universe can contract to a size near the planck scale not only once but repeatedly in a finite amount of time. Tell me, how much finite time do you want to use to have this infinite size universe go through each of these cycles? 4. Now, … let us get real. Let us use a finite size, 17 billion years, of an infinite “cosmo” and see if we get some kind of bouncing universe that correspond to observations. There is only one force, gravity, which will be able to select that finite size so that we can have these repeated cycles of bounce. Therefore, we could imagine that this cosmic horizon could have been smaller in previous bounces and that it grew with the addition of more “matter”. As a result, we are now in a universe that has 10^80 “particles” and it now has a cosmic horizon of 17 billion light years. If you want to eliminate the cosmic horizon then find a way to eliminate the gravity that caused it. If you disagree with a cosmic horizon then you got to find/invent a mechanism that will select a finite size of an infinite universe that will go through the bounce cycles in a finite amount of time. --------

Can the universe fit into the CMB?

note: I keep adding information, as I find it, that can be usefull. [b](latest: 05 June Just when you thought that you had all the variables included, someone comes out with an interesting paper that should be considered. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0313[/url] On accelerated Universe expansion Authors: Leonid V. Verozub (Submitted on 2 May 2008) --------- 20 March [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211285v3[/url] [/b] ----- Can the universe fit into the CMB? Assumed facts that I have learned. There are 10^80 particles in the universe and they must fit into a sphere with a diameter of 400,000 LY. Today, the smallest particle sizes are approx. 10^-18m. -------- Question What is the size of the particles at 400,000 years after the big bang so that they can fit into this horizon? --------- I used the smallest particles that we have in the Standard Model rather than using the size of the proton (10^-15). I have also disregarded the cause of the Cosmic microwave background radiation. With my questionable calculations, I get that the particles would have had to be 2.29 times smaller than 10^-18 to fit into the size of the universe at 400,000 years after the big bang. Therefore, as the universe expanded, from 400,000 LY, the particles would also need to expand and stopped expanding at 10^-18. In order to get particles at 10^-18 they would have to expand and stop expanding at less than one billion years after the big bang. At that size, the universe would be big enough to contain the 10^80 particles of the standard model. ---------- Problems The expansion rate from 400,000 to one billion would be too fast. Particles are not suppose to be expanding. Those high energy particles, (smaller than 10^-18), would be creating a cascade of photons and particles, (smaller than 10^-18). Those high energy particles do not exist in the Standard Model. There is no mechanism to stop expansion of the particles and have the universe continuing its expansion. -------- [b]Possible solutions Add more particles between the age of 400,000 and a billion. (Merging with more black holes, Reheating.)[/b] Move the CBR from 400,000 to a billion year. Keep hoping to find those high energy particles that are suppose to exist below 10^-18 ---> planck scale and find the mechanism that produces photons from those small particles. --------- What do your calculations give you? --------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation[/url] The CMB gives a snapshot of the Universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 400,000 years after the Big Bang — this time period is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling — the temperature of the Universe was about 3,000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen. --------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time[/url] Timeline of the Big Bang The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in the big bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses. Following this period, in the early universe, the evolution of the universe proceeded according to known high energy physics. This is when the first protons, electrons and neutrons formed, then nuclei and finally atoms. With the formation of neutral hydrogen, the cosmic microwave background was emitted. Finally, the epoch of structure formation began, when matter started to aggregate into the first stars and quasars, and ultimately galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters formed. The ultimate fate of the universe is not yet known. ----------- As an interested amateur I have been reading [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.2865v1.pdf[/url] NEW FRONTIERS IN COSMOLOGY AND GALAXY FORMATION: CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE Richard Ellis and Joseph Silk 18 Dec 2007 Detailed agreement between the standard model and the spectrum of fluctuations in the microwave background gives us confidence that our basic picture of structure formation is correct. It predicts the first galaxy-size halos will accrete cooling baryons to form stars by a redshift of around 20 or so. Many expect intergalactic hydrogen was reionised by the first substantial generation of star-forming low mass galaxies. Richard Ellis and Joseph Silk said,[b] “p. 12 The negatives are that one has no idea of the escape fraction for ionizing photons in the first galaxies and that there is at least one plausible alternative source of ionizing photons. This consists of intermediate mass black holes (IMBHs), which act as miniquasars and are prolific sources of ionizing photons at very early epochs. They must be present in considerable numbers in the early universe if one is to understand how supermassive black holes were in place by z = 6 as evidenced by the presence of ultraluminous quasars.[/b] Theoretical arguments suggest that the first generation of dissipating gas clouds at z = 10 could as easily form IMBHs as population III stars, and indeed probably form both. Confirmation of such a high redshift population of non-thermal ionising sources could eventually come from a combination of x-ray background, high-ℓ CMB and LOFAR observations. …” ---------------- [b]It seems to me that they are advocating/proposing one of my possible solutions Add more particles between the age of 400,000 and a billion. (Merging with more black holes, Reheating.)[/b] --------- I also went looking for more info on z = 6 and calculators [url]http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators3A_1_Sub.html[/url] MARTINDALE'S CALCULATORS ON-LINE CENTER ASTROPHYSICS, ASTRONOMY & SPACE SCIENCE [url]http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html[/url] Calculator from Ned wright ---------- [b]Continued…[/b] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole[/url] supermassive black hole Supermassive black holes have some interesting properties which distinguish them from their relatively low-mass cousins: The average density of a supermassive black hole can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of air. This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object (such as the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole) is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, and mass merely increases linearly, the volume increases at a greater rate than mass. Thus, density decreases for increasingly larger radii of black holes. The tidal forces in the vicinity of the event horizon are significantly weaker. Since the central singularity is so far away from the horizon, a hypothetical astronaut travelling towards the black hole center would not experience significant tidal force until very deep into the black hole. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1537[/url] Supermassive Black Holes Authors: Fulvio Melia (Submitted on 10 May 2007) These objects may have been critical to the formation of structure in the early universe, spawning bursts of star formation and nucleating proto-galactic condensations. [b]Possibly half of all the radiation produced after the Big Bang may be attributed to them, whose number is now known to exceed 300 million.[/b] A supermassive black hole at the nucleus of one of these distant galaxies “turns on” when it begins to accrete stars and gas from its nearby environment; the rate at which matter is converted into energy can be as high as 10 solar masses per year. So the character and power of a quasar depend in part on how much matter is available for consumption. Some supermassive black holes may not be visible as quasars at all, but rather just sputter enough to become the fainter galactic nuclei in our galactic neighborhood. By now, some 15,000 distant quasars have been found, though the actual number of supermassive black holes discovered thus far is much greater. [b]Because of their intrinsic brightness, the most distant quasars are seen at a time when the universe was a mere fraction of its present age, roughly one billion years after the Big Bang.[/b] The current distance record is held by an object found with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), with a redshift of z = 6.3, corresponding to a time roughly 700 million years after the Big Bang. [B]The SDSS has shown that the number of quasars rose dramatically from a billion years after the Big Bang to a peak around 2.5 billion years later, falling off sharply at later times toward the present.[/B] However, not all the supermassive black holes in our midst have necessarily grown through the quasar phase. Quasars typically have masses = 109 M⊙. Yet the black hole at the center of our galaxy is barely 3.4 × 106 M⊙. [b]The faint X-ray background pervading the intergalactic medium has been a puzzle for many years. Unlike the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang, the photons in the X-ray haze are too energetic to have been produced at early times. Instead, this radiation field suggests a more recent provenance associated with a population of sources whose overall radiative output may actually dominate over everything else in the cosmos. Stars and ordinary galaxies simply do not radiate profusely at such high energy, and therefore cannot fit the suggested profile. And so, the all-pervasive X-ray haze, in combination with the discovery of gas-obscured quasars, now point to supermassive black holes as the agents behind perhaps half of all the universe’s radiation produced after the Big Bang.[/b] Ordinary stars no longer monopolize the power as they had for decades prior to the advent of space-based astronomy. Quasars seem to have peaked 10 billion years ago, early in the universe’s existence. The light from galaxies, on the other hand, originated much later—after the cosmos had aged another 2 to 4 billion years. A seed black hole might have formed in the cluster’s core. Estimates show that once formed, such an object could have doubled its mass every 40 million years, so over the age of the universe, even a modestly appointed black hole could have grown into a billion-solar-mass object. The problem is that this could not have happened in only 700 million years, when the first supermassive black holes appeared. ------------- [b]As I understand it.[/b] The universe at 400,000 was too small to contain all of the 10^80 particles. [B]The SDSS has shown that the number of quasars rose dramatically from a billion years after the Big Bang to a peak around 2.5 billion years later, falling off sharply at later times toward the present.[/B] Supermassive Black Holes crossed the THEN “cosmic horizon” of our universe and supplied the needed 10^80 particles and increased “the gravitational cosmic horizon” to 16.9 billion years. The particle horizon is 13.7 billion years (the age NOW). [b]I will repeat[/b] I agree that the terminology is confusing ... Black Holes ... Cosmic Horizon ... Schwarzschild Radius ... all have the mechanism of "brick wall", once in you cannot get out. As a result, Richard Ellis and Joseph Silk, and Fulvio Melia or others will have to develop "the mechanism" that allows black holes to break apart and allow the "particles" contained in the black holes to spread out. (Hawkins’s radiation won't do it) Conceptually, I can think of ways that it could be done, but the "math kids" will need to proposes mechanisms that can be analyzed. There should be a Nobel prize for doing that and it should also lead to a way to tap into a new source of energy. Ps. Having a “Gravitational Cosmic Horizon” would probably make it easier for the bounce models. --------- I’m not coming up with anything new. I’m just using the information that I have learned. Speed of light = 300,000 km/sec Sec, min, hr, day, yr, =60*60*24*365= 525,600 300,000*525,600 = 1.58 *10 ^9 km, = 1.58 * 10^12 cm. = 1.58 * 10^27 protons (proton = 10^-15) 400,000 *(1.58 *10^27) = 6.31 *10^32 proton diameter of CBR sphere = ( π •d³)/6 = 3.14*(6.31 *10^32)^3/6 = 3.14*(2.51*10^34)/6 = 1.314 *10^34 protons Densest sphere packing (hex.) will only fill 74.08% of space. Therefore, 0.7408(1.314 *10^34) = 9.73*10^33 protons in a sphere of 400,000 light years. OR [b]there are aprox. 10^34 protons in the CBR.[/b] Therefore, if there are 10^80 protons in the universe, [b]there is a shortage of 10^46 protons in the universe. [/b] Since the CBR does not reveal a hex. packing pattern, then RANDOM packing is the most likely scenario and random pack only makes up about 64 percent. As a result there would be even less protons in the CBR. ONLY, if the SMBH came from outside of the THEN size of the universe can we end up with enough particles to make up the 10^80 estimated number of particles in the universe. NEXT, [b]Possibly half of all the radiation produced after the Big Bang may be attributed to the SMBH, whose number is now known to exceed 300 million.[/b] Who can do the calculation of how many particles are locked up in those SMBH that cannot contribute to that half of all the radiation produced after the Big Bang? ---------- [b]Don’t forget, if I made a calculating error, then the 10^34 protons in the CBR will not be the right starting point.[/b] ------- [quote]Garth [b]P.S. If you want to find out how crowded the protons were at the Last Scattering Surface of the CMB there is an easier way. The CMB has been red shifted by ~ 1100 since it was emitted at the LSS. This means that linear distances between representative galaxies were 1100 times smaller then. The volume of the universe was therefore ~109 smaller than now. The present baryon density is ~ 10-30 gm/cc which means it was ~ 10-21 gm/cc at the LSS. This is far more rarefied than in the best laboratory vacuum, not what you would call crowded![/b][/quote] --------- [url]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970408c.html[/url] Ask an Astrophysicist " So, in the basic definition of a black hole I used above (where the size of the object is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius) the whole Universe is one big black hole with us on the inside. Therefore, the simple answer is that we are inside the event horizon of the whole Universe, and there is no way that we can escape the Universe's grasp. " ------- Of course, [b]my calculations are wrong I did not do the cube of 10^32 for the volume of the sphere [/b] and it needs to be “fined tuned” to include the electrons because we see the CBR with The hydrogen line. When I redo the calculations for the atom (10^-12) I get a possible number of atoms in the CBR of 10 ^99. Therefore, all of the atoms can fit into the CBR since there are only 10 ^80. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom[/url] The electron is at 9.11×10-31 kg Protons at 1.67×10-27 kg The electron cloud The smallest atom is helium with a radius of 31 pm, (10^-12) while the largest known is caesium at 298 pm. Although hydrogen has a lower atomic number than helium, the calculated radius of the hydrogen atom is about 70% larger. Spectra of excited states can be used to analyze the atomic composition of distant stars. Specific light wavelengths that are contained in the observed light from stars can be separated out and related to the quantized transitions in free gas atoms. The first atoms (complete with bound electrons) were theoretically created 380,000 years after the big bang; an epoch called recombination, when the expanding universe cooled enough to allow electrons to become attached to nuclei. Since then, atomic nuclei have been combined in stars through the process of nuclear fusion to generate atoms up to iron. A typical star weighs about 2x10^33 Grams, which is about 1x10^57 atoms of hydrogen per star... That is a 1 followed by 57 zeros. A typical galaxy has about 400 billion stars so that means each galaxy has 1x10^57 X 400,000,000,000 = 5x10^68 hydrogen atoms in a galaxy There are possibly 80 billion galaxies in the Universe, so that means that there are about: 5x10^68 X 80,000,000,000 = 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the Universe. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_centimeter_radiation[/url] The hydrogen line [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Recombination:_380.2C000_years[/url] ------- Thanks Garth for accompanying me in this quest for information. The big bang model has been refined for over 50 years. Amateurs and students have probably been asking the same questions for 50 years. All adjustments and refinements came about as a result of these kinds of questions and as a result of new observations from astronomers. As I understand, [b]now[/b], the only adjustment that needs to be done, to coincide with observations, is those 300,000 million quasars, (black holes), which were formed in the early universe. To try to answer this problem, Fulvio Melia is doing something different. He is proposing changing the age of the universe to accommodate the necessary time needed for the formation of those black holes. He is proposing two ages: 1) A particle distribution age, 13.7 Gyrs, which we can observe and 2) A Gravity age, which we cannot observe, occupying a sphere of 16.9 billion light years which would be the actual age of the universe. Our lack of understanding of gravity at small scales, (smaller than a hair), and our inability of “seeing” if gravity is constant on all scales is the main obstacle to moving further in our understanding of the universe. The cosmic background radiation which has been set at 400,000 years does not contain a baryon density which would indicate a black hole. [b]However, when doing a “look back” in an expanding universe, the baryon density would have been sufficient to have been in a Schwarzschild radius prior to 400,000 years.[/b] Anything prior to 400,000 years (the CBR) is void of observation. This is, therefore, another indication of our lack of understanding of gravity. Did “mother nature” find a way out of the Schwarzschild radius? Did “mother nature” find a way to avoid Schwarzschild radius? OR Is the Schwarzschild radius still there? From our observations, we cannot detect or interpret any signs of what we understand to be a Schwarzschild radius, (a gravitational cosmic horizon). As a result, hurk4’s description, “A beating heart in a static Schwarzschild shell” cannot be ruled out. As an amateur I have many different questions. [b]Since gravity was also within the 400,000 CBR sphere and since gravity is expanding at the speed of light then as the gravity sphere gets bigger as a result, the space that the particles can occupy gets bigger. That would imply that the expansion of the universe is due to gravity having an expanding Schwarzschild Radius.[/b] If there was an input of 300 million Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH) after the big bang and before z = 10 then the universe would get an additional expansion phase. Hummmm!! Maybe different sizes of black holes have different properties and behave differently? What was the Schwarzschild radius before the input of those 300,000 black holes? Hummmm!!! Maybe it was a black hole. Maybe the high energy prior to the 400,000 year was bouncing around for a long time over many cycles of bounce prior to getting an additional input of matter which would increase the Schwarzschild radius past the 400,000 light year. With the discovery of dark energy as being the main constituent of the universe, new concepts are being considered. (Even that gravity is not a force but a geometric condition.) [b]Of course, with “accurate number crunching” some of these questions can be eliminated as highly improbable due to our present observations. I hope that Garth and other good “number crunchers” will stick around and help to answer some of these questions.[/b] --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3545[/url] The Higgs Phenomenon in Quantum Gravity Authors: R. Percacci (Submitted on 20 Dec 2007) [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.4143[/url] Cosmological Plebanski theory Authors: Karim Noui, Alenjandro Perez, Kevin Vandersloot (Submitted on 26 Dec 2007) ----------- blog 11,977 28 dec [b]I’m not ready to quit without getting a few more answers.[/b] 1) We still have not taken the effect of the mass of the neutrinos. [quote] Garth The CMB has been red shifted by ~ 1100 since it was emitted at the LSS. This means that linear distances between representative galaxies were 1100 times smaller then. The volume of the universe was therefore ~109 smaller than now. The present baryon density is ~ 10-30 gm/cc which means it was ~ 10-21 gm/cc at the LSS. This is far more rarefied than in the best laboratory vacuum, not what you would call crowded! [/quote] Would we do the same procedure for neutrinos? Is there room for all of them in a 400,000 light year sphere. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607101[/url] Neutrino masses and cosmic radiation density: Combined analysis Steen Hannestad and Georg G. Raffelt 06 July 2006 --------- 2) We cannot leave without including some kind of number for dark energy. [url]http://www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm04/talks/yunwang.pdf[/url] Model Model-Independent Reconstruction of Dark Energy Density from Current Observational Data Yun Wang UCLA Symposium on Dark Matter & Dark Energy, Feb 19, 2004 ---------- [b]Being an amateur, I can only wait for the answers to the “number crunching” to see if we are within a Gravitational Cosmic Horizon.[/b] ------ 02 feb. refined calculations My calculations (to be verified) ========= Atomic radii = 1.28 x 10^-10 meter Atomic Sizes (in Angstroms, which is 10^-10 meter) ------ Volume of an atom =8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms 4/3 pi(1.28 x 10^-10 ) 3=4.187(1.28 x 10^-10) ^3= 4.187 (2.097 x 10^-30) =8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms -------- Speed of light = 300,000 km/sec = 9.46 x10^17 cm/year = 9.46 x10^25 Angstroms/year Sec, min, hr, day, yr, = 60*60*24*365 = 3.1536x10^7 sec/year 3.1536x10^7 sec/year*300,000 km/sec = 9.46 x10^12 km/year 9.46 x10^12 km/year*1000 m/km = 9.46 x10^15 m/year 9.46 x10^15 m/year*10000000000 =9.46 x10^25 Angstroms/year also 9.46 x10^15 m/year*100 cm/m =9.46 x10^17 cm/year -------- Diameter of CBR = 400,000 light year =3.78 x 10^31 Angstroms 9.46 x10^25 Angstroms/year* 400,000 light year=3.78 x 10^31 Angstroms ------ sphere Volume = 4/3 pi*r^3 , (pi*d^3)/6, surface = 4*pi*r^2 -------- Volume of CBR = 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms (pi*3.78 x 10^31 Angstroms ) ^3/6 = (1.187 x 10^32) ^ 3/6 =1.672 x 10^96/6 = 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms -------- Number of Angstroms sized positions in CBR = 10^127 Volume of CBR / Volume of atom 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms/ 8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms = 3.178 x 10^127 or If we assume random packing, we can just multiply the volume of the larger sphere by 64% and divide by the volume of the smaller sphere. Therefore random packing = 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms x.64 = 1.78 x 10^95 1.78 x 10^95 Angstroms/ 8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms = 2.033 x 10^126 Therefore densest packing =2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms x.74 = 2.06 x 10^95 2.06 x 10^95 Angstroms/ 8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms = 2.35 x 10^126 -------- SUMMARY Number of Angstroms sized positions in CBR from random packing = 126 Atoms occupy 80 positions Atoms 80 positions of 126 = 63%. 63% is in agreement with random packing. ----- Photons: 10^9 for every atoms =10^80 *10^9=10^89 Atoms occupy 80 positions.Therefore, 89 Photons can only occupy the remaining 47 Positions which would mean 0.528 photons per position ------ Neutrinos Neutrinos = 100/cubic cm = 100 per 1.0x10^-24 cubic angstrom Positions available for neutrinos = 127 – 80 = 47 How many cubic angstrom in 1 cubic centimeter? The answer is 1.0x10^24. 47*24=1128, Therefore, there is one neutrinos per 11.28 positions. -------- Dark energy: Cold dark matter make up 0.27, dark energy make up 0.69, atoms make up 0.04 of the mass of the universe. Atoms occupy 80 positions or 63% of the volume, yet make up only 4% of the mass. The densest possible packings of equal spheres is 0.74048. For Dark matter to make up 27% of the mass it would need to be smaller and heavier than an atom so that it could occupy the remaining available volume from densest possible packing of 0.74, which would be 0.11. Since hex. or cubic packing of spheres, 26%, is the remaining volume from densest packing, then that would mean that dark energy which make up 69% of the mass could only be part of that structure of spacetime, 26%. The structure of spacetime has yet to be identified. =========== [b]insert 11 March[/b] I've been waiting for someone to come up with some math so that we would have something concrete to discuss. WELL!!! Sombody has done the calculations! Some very interesting results are coming out of this approach. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606448[/url] Concerning the instantaneous mass and the extent of an expanding universe Authors: H.J. Fahr, Michael Heyl (Submitted on 19 Jun 2006 (v1), last revised 4 Dec 2006 (this version, v2)) This radius on the other hand can be shown to be nearly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the so-defined mass of the universe. -------- [b]insert 22 March[/b] I would presume that the Mach's Principle was understood by : R. G. Vishwakarma, and Parampreet Singh when they wrote the following paper and equated the brane to the Schwarzschild horizon and proposed various answers. [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211285v3[/url] Can brane cosmology with a vanishing \Lambda explain the observations? Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma (IUCAA), Parampreet Singh (IUCAA) (Submitted on 13 Nov 2002 (v1), last revised 21 Mar 2003 (this version, v3)) [b] In brane cosmology, the homogeneous, isotropic RobertsonWalker (RW) universe can be envisioned as a hyper surface embedded in the Schwarzschild anti-deSitter (AdS) bulk spacetime.[/b] The small fluctuations (anisotropies) in the temperature of CMB offer a glimpse of the epoch in the early universe when photons decoupled from the cosmic plasma at zdec = 1100. Before this epoch, [b]matter and radiation were tightly coupled and behaved like a single fluid. (insert comment – a quark-gluon liquid).[/b] At z = 1100, the temperature dropped sufficiently to let the protons capture electrons to form neutral hydrogen and other light elements (recombination). . [b] (insert comment – prior to z = 1100, Hydrogen was a solid then a liquid then a gas).[/b] As the electrons, which had trapped photons, disappeared reducing the opacity for Thomson scattering, the photons decoupled (last scattered) from matter. The initial fluctuations in the tightly coupled baryon-photon plasma oscillate at the speed of sound driven by gravity, inertia of baryons and pressure from photons. This continues until the recombination epoch. Physically these oscillations represent the hot and cold spots on the fluid generated by compression and rarefaction by a standing sound or acoustic wave. Thus the wave which has a density maximum at the time of last scattering, corresponds to a peak in the power spectrum. The locations of the peaks are set by the acoustic scale ℓA, which can be interpreted as the angle subtended by the sound horizon at the last scattering surface. This angle (say, θA) is given by the ratio of sound horizon to the distance (angular diameter distance) of the last scattering surface: ========= jal

Comments on the dynamics of dark energy

As usual, I’ll be updating and correcting as I receive inputs from the professionals. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603057[/url] Dynamics of dark energy Authors: Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, Shinji Tsujikawa (Submitted on 8 Mar 2006 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2006 (this version, v3)) The value of the energy density stored in the cosmological constant today, which rather paradoxically is called dark energy and has nothing to do with dark matter, this value has to be of order the critical density, namely ρ_ ∼ 10−3 eV4. Unfortunately, no sensible explanation exists as to why a true cosmological constant should be at this scale, it should naturally be much larger. Typically, since it is conventionally associated with the energy of the vacuum in quantum theory we expect it to have a size of order the typical scale of early Universe phase transitions. Even at the QCD scale it would imply a value ρ_ ∼ 10−3 GeV4. The question then remains, why has _ got the value it has today? It appears that consistency is obtained for a spatially flat universe with the fractional energy density in matter contributing today with (0) m ∼ 0.3 whereas for the cosmological constant we have (0) _ ∼ 0.7 In this review we assume that the dark energy is really there in some form, either dominating the energy density or through some form of modified gravity, in both cases driving our Universe into a second period of accelerated expansion around a redshift of z = O(1). Now a word of caution. The reader is about to spend a great deal of time learning (we hope!) about models of dark energy. The fact remains that although many of us believe some sort of dynamics is responsible for the dark energy, such is the sensitivity of current observations, there is no evidence of an evolving dark energy component, everything remains perfectly consistent with the simplest model (not from the particle physics point of view) of a time independent cosmological constant [51]. Indeed if we include the number of required extra parameters needed to allow for dynamical dark energy as a part of the selection criteria and apply Bayesian information criteria to carry out cosmological model selection, then there is no need at present to allow anything other than the cosmological constant [65, 66]. Nevertheless this may change in the future as observations improve even more, and it remains important to pursue alternative models of dark energy to distinguish them from the cosmological constant observationally. p. 10 It should be emphasized that the accelerated expansion is by cosmological standards really a late-time phenomenon, starting at a redshift z ∼ 1. P. 11 … the radiation dominated period is much shorter than the total age of the universe. In other words the integral coming from the region z > 1000 hardly affects the total integral … p.20 Cosmological Constant [b]From now on we assume we have solved the underlying _ problem. It is zero for some reason and dark energy is to be explained by some other mechanism.[/b] ---------- [b]I’ve been busy doing some creative thinking.[/b] Steven Weinberg, had the decoupling at 700,000 light year and he did not have to consider dark energy. (9) [b]Only about one baryon for 10^9 photons, as inferred from the 3K background and density estimates. Since the conservation of baryon number is a strong conservation principle, it is inferred that the ratio of photons to baryons is constant throughout the process of expansion.[/b](7),(9) At decoupling, the Energy density is about 69% photons, 31% neutrinos. This remnant neutrino density is put at 100 per cubic centimeter at an effective temperature of 2K (Simpson). The background temperature for neutrinos is lower than that for the microwave background (2.7K) because the neutrino transparency point came earlier. Today, neutrinos permeate the Universe at a density of about 150 per cubic centimeter. (5) Since the CBR does not reveal a hex. packing pattern, then RANDOM packing is the most likely scenario and random packing would only makes up about 64 percent of the volume/area of the CBR. (2) The densest possible packings of equal spheres is 0.74048. Since we know a size that we can use for hydrogen and helium, (3) we should be able to find the percentage of 10^80 atoms which make up the 400,000 light year sphere. Dark energy There is 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy. If dark energy has mass, it travels at less than the speed of light and it must occupy a position and be treated just like any other particle. (4) Since neutrinos also have mass they should be treated as particles requiring a position and location and because they travel at less than the speed of light. ======= references 1. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere[/url] Sphere 2. [url]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HexagonalClosePacking.html[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing[/url] Sphere packing 3. [url]http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch104-07/atomic_size.htm[/url] Atomic Size 4. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/wmap.html#c1[/url] The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) 5. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/neutrino.html#c1[/url] Electron Neutrinos and Antineutrinos 6. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/neutemp.html#c1[/url] Neutrino Transparency Temperature 7. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/bkg3k.html#c1[/url] The 3K Cosmic Background Radiation 8. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino.html[/url] Electron Neutrinos and Antineutrinos 9. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/bbcloc.html[/url] Weinberg, Steven, The First Three Minutes, Bantam Books, 1977. Reference for 3K background radiation 10. [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/mod6.html#c3[/url] Blackbody Radiation 11. [url]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html[/url] Is the big bang a black hole? Original by Philip Gibbs, 1997. 12. [url]http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/32522[/url] Talk given by Steven Weinberg at BCS@50, held on 10–13 October 2007 at the University of Illinois Extract You may know that today the observation of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background are being used to set constraints on the nature of the exponential expansion, known as inflation, that is widely believed to have preceded the radiation-dominated Big Bang. But there is a problem here. In between the end of inflation and the time that the microwave background that we observe was emitted, there intervened a number of events that are not at all understood: the heating of the universe after inflation, the production of baryons, the decoupling of cold dark matter, and so on. So how is it possible to learn anything about inflation by studying radiation that was emitted long after inflation, when we don't understand what happened in between? The reason that we can get away with this is that the cosmological fluctuations now being studied are of a type, known as adiabatic, that can be regarded as the Goldstone excitations required by a symmetry, related to general co-ordinate invariance, that is spontaneously broken by the space–time geometry. The physical wavelengths of these cosmological fluctuations were stretched out by inflation so much that they were very large during the epochs when things were happening that we don't understand, so they then had zero frequency, which means that the amplitude of these fluctuations was not changing, so that the value of the amplitude relatively close to the present tells us what it was during inflation. 13. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603057[/url] Dynamics of dark energy Authors: Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, Shinji Tsujikawa (Submitted on 8 Mar 2006 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2006 (this version, v3)) 14. [url]http://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho/lessons/lesson25.htm[/url] Exponent Rules Rule for Addition and Subtraction - when adding or subtracting in scientific notation, you must express the numbers as the same power of 10. This will often involve changing the decimal place of the coefficient. Ex. 1 Add 3.76 x 10^4 and 5.5 x 10^2 move the decimal to change 5.5 x 10^2 to 0.055 x 10^4 add the coefficients and leave the base and exponent the same: 3.76 + 0.055 = 3.815 x 10^4 following the rules for rounding, our final answer is 3.815 x 10^4 Rule for Multiplication - When you multiply numbers with scientific notation, multiply the coefficients together and add the exponents. The base will remain 10. 10^3 x 10^2 = 10^5 Rule for Division - When dividing with scientific notation, divide the coefficients and subtract the exponents. The base will remain 10. 10^3 ÷ 10^2 = 10^1 3) When parenthesis are involved, as in the example, you multiply. (10^3) ^2 = 10^6 =========== My calculations (to be verified) ========= Atomic radii = 1.28 x 10^-10 meter Atomic Sizes (in Angstroms, which is 10^-10 meter) ------ Volume of an atom =8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms 4/3 pi(1.28 x 10^-10 ) 3=4.187(1.28 x 10^-10) ^3= 4.187 (2.097 x 10^-30) =8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms -------- Speed of light = 300,000 km/sec = 9.46 x10^17 cm/year = 9.46 x10^25 Angstroms/year Sec, min, hr, day, yr, = 60*60*24*365 = 3.1536x10^7 sec/year 3.1536x10^7 sec/year*300,000 km/sec = 9.46 x10^12 km/year 9.46 x10^12 km/year*1000 m/km = 9.46 x10^15 m/year 9.46 x10^15 m/year*10000000000 =9.46 x10^25 Angstroms/year also 9.46 x10^15 m/year*100 cm/m =9.46 x10^17 cm/year -------- Diameter of CBR = 400,000 light year =3.78 x 10^31 Angstroms 9.46 x10^25 Angstroms/year* 400,000 light year=3.78 x 10^31 Angstroms ------ sphere Volume = 4/3 pi*r^3 , (pi*d^3)/6, surface = 4*pi*r^2 -------- Volume of CBR = 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms (pi*3.78 x 10^31 Angstroms ) ^3/6 = (1.187 x 10^32) ^ 3/6 =1.672 x 10^96/6 = 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms -------- Number of Angstroms sized positions in CBR = 10^127 Volume of CBR / Volume of atom 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms/ 8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms = 3.178 x 10^127 or If we assume random packing, we can just multiply the volume of the larger sphere by 64% and divide by the volume of the smaller sphere. Therefore random packing = 2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms x.64 = 1.78 x 10^95 1.78 x 10^95 Angstroms/ 8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms = 2.033 x 10^126 Therefore densest packing =2.79 x 10^96 Angstroms x.74 = 2.06 x 10^95 2.06 x 10^95 Angstroms/ 8.78 x 10^-30 Angstroms = 2.35 x 10^126 -------- SUMMARY Number of Angstroms sized positions in CBR from random packing = 126 Atoms occupy 80 positions Atoms 80 positions of 126 = 63%. 63% is in agreement with random packing. ----- Photons: 10^9 for every atoms =10^80 *10^9=10^89 Atoms occupy 80 positions.Therefore, 89 Photons can only occupy the remaining 47 Positions which would mean 0.528 photons per position ------ Neutrinos Neutrinos = 100/cubic cm = 100 per 1.0x10^-24 cubic angstrom Positions available for neutrinos = 127 – 80 = 47 How many cubic angstrom in 1 cubic centimeter? The answer is 1.0x10^24. 47*24=1128, Therefore, there is one neutrinos per 11.28 positions. -------- Dark energy: Cold dark matter make up 0.27, dark energy make up 0.69, atoms make up 0.04 of the mass of the universe. Atoms occupy 80 positions or 63% of the volume, yet make up only 4% of the mass. The densest possible packings of equal spheres is 0.74048. For Dark matter to make up 27% of the mass it would need to be smaller and heavier than an atom so that it could occupy the remaining available volume from densest possible packing of 0.74, which would be 0.11. Since hex. or cubic packing of spheres, 26%, is the remaining volume from densest packing, then that would mean that dark energy which make up 69% of the mass could only be part of that structure of spacetime, 26%. The structure of spacetime has yet to be identified. Ater reading Dynamics of dark energy, by Authors: Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, Shinji Tsujikawa, I could not figure out which kind of models could be related to the volume analysis that I have done because all of the approaches use energy density and pressure. Of course, if I made mistakes using scientific notation then there would be different conclusions. Creative Reflection Before the discovery of dark energy and dark matter we could imagine that the universe was a a perfect machine that was capable of producing 10^80 perfect copies of hydrogen and helium. Now we should consider that this machine was not perfect and that it was producing a honeycomb and trying to fill it with “dark matter” and that the 10^80 particles are manufacturing defects. [b]Sweet Dreams![/b] =========

The search for the big bang substance

The search for the big bang substance Comments on Dark energy: In the previous posting, I left you with some creative reflection and a wish for sweet dreams. On a more serious note, there is no room in the CMB for dark matter and dark energy at the level of “particles”. --------- However, when reading about the research concerning solid hydrogen and solid neutrons, it appears that there is expectation that the next experiment could be the turning point in creating a solid phase. This would change the explanations of the big bang. Following this line of reasoning and the possibilities, then 'Metastable Metallic Hydrogen', (MSMH) could be forming the “core” and the electrons could be “following” the hex. pattern (spacetime) around the protons. Electrons and protons do like to be around each other and electrons give off photons by changing their energy state. This would be the CMB at 400,000. The next needed step would be to find a place place for all of the neutrons. The neutrons would also need to be “degenerate matter” and it would be nice if we would have something that could act as the diamond anvil and create the pressure to make the hydrogen be in a 'Metastable Metallic Hydrogen', (MSMH) state. This could be accomplished by having the neutrons situated on the “mantel”, “outer shell” of the Metallic hydrogen sphere. It would be like a very very large neutron star with a 'Metastable Metallic Hydrogen', (MSMH) core. If 23% of this neutron degenerate matter still existed then we could refer to it as “Cold Dark Matter”. =========== Big Bang Substance 'Metastable Metallic Hydrogen', (MSMH) [url]http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2007-7/hl2007-7-en.html[/url] Cosmological hydrogen recombination lines from redshifts z~1400 It is worth mentioning that the photons forming these small CMB spectral distortions were emitted mainly between redshifts z~1300 and 1400, i.e. before recombination made the Universe transparent, defining the last scattering surface around z~1100, at which the observed CMB angular fluctuations were formed. Therefore, a detection of the recombinational lines in the CMB spectrum will yield the final proof that recombination has occurred as we think it has. ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608120v1.pdf[/url] Free-bound emission from cosmological hydrogen recombination J. Chluba1 and R.A. Sunyaev ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2879[/url] The Richness and Beauty of the Physics of Cosmological Recombination R.A. Sunyaev, and J. Chluba -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0594[/url] Lines in the Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from the Epoch of Cosmological Hydrogen Recombination Authors: J.A. Rubino-Martin , J. Chluba , R.A. Sunyaev ----------- [url]http://edoc.mpg.de/301762[/url] Spectroscopic evidence of interstellar solid hydrogen Schaefer, J. The question is raised in this paper whether existing solid hydrogen in the interstellar medium of the Milky Way could be spectroscopically detected. Solid hydrogen is known as a quantum crystal, in which the single molecules can rotate and vibrate almost freely, the rotational and vibrational quantum numbers are very good quantum numbers, and the rotational and vibrational transition frequencies can be determined from the known energy levels of the free H2 molecule within errors of a few wavenumbers. Twelve molecules are surrounding each central molecule at a constant distance, the “nearest neighbor” distance, of (empirical) R0 = 7.09 a0 = 3.75 ˚A(Van Kranendonk [8]). It is larger than the empirically fitted equilibrium distance of 6.5 a0 of two freely interacting ground-state H2 molecules [12]. This shows that the crystal of solid hydrogen is blown up by the zero-point lattice vibrations. Two possible close-packed structures provide different conditions of inversion symmetry in the lattice: the “face-centered cubic” (fcc) and the “hexagonal close-packed” (hcp). Both structures contain monomolecular layers with six nearest neighbors (nns) forming a regular hexagon around each molecule. In following Van Kranendonk [2], I assume the hcp crystal being generally valid, with a unit cell prism containing two H2 molecules. ========== Here is some information about the crystal structure of hydrogen. [url]http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/H/xtal.html[/url] • Space group: P63/mmc (Space group number: 194) • Structure: hcp (hexagonal close-packed). • Cell parameters: o a: 470 pm o b: 470 pm o c: 340 pm o α: 90.000° o β: 90.000° o γ: 120.000° --------- [url]http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1999/5000/5830palaszewski1.html[/url] Solid Hydrogen Formed for Atomic Propellants --------- [url]http://www.tvu.com/PEngPropsSH2Web.htm[/url] COMPILATION OF THE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOLID HYDROGEN --------- [url]http://www.princeton.edu/~gscoles/about/hydrogen.html[/url] Spectroscopy of neat and doped hydrogen clusters ---------- [url]http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n7/abs/nphys625.html[/url] Nature Physics 3, 473 - 476 (2007) Structure of phase III of solid hydrogen Chris J. Pickard & Richard J. Needs Our study leads to a radical revision of the DFT phase diagram of hydrogen up to nearly 400 GPa. That the most stable phases remain insulating to very high pressures eliminates a major discrepancy between theory5 and experiment6. One of our new phases is calculated to be stable over a wide range of pressures, and its vibrational properties agree with the available experimental data for phase III. The low-pressure phase I of solid hydrogen, which consists of freely rotating molecules on a hexagonal close-packed lattice2, transforms at pressures of about 110 GPa to the broken-symmetry phase II, in which the mean molecular orientations are ordered, and then to phase III at about 150 GPa (ref. 1). However, even the combination of X-ray and neutron scattering data and Raman and infrared vibrational data has not so far yielded the structures of phases II and III of hydrogen. The most stable phase we found in the range 105–270 GPa is a layered structure of space group C2/c, which is illustrated in Fig. 3. We also found a layered molecular structure of Cmca symmetry with a 12-atom primitive unit cell. We refer to this as Cmca-12 to distinguish it from the Cmca structure discussed in earlier work5, which was also generated by our searches. Cmca-12 is illustrated in Fig. 4, and it is the most stable phase in the range 270–385 GPa. From 385–490 GPa we found the Cmca structure to be the most stable, and above 490 GPa the monatomic I41/amd structure with a c/a ratio greater than unity (which is also the structure of Cs-IV) is most stable. Cmca-12 remains competitive up to about 500 GPa, and a more closely packed version of Cmca, which we refer to as high-Cmca (and is the same structure as black phosphorus), is almost degenerate with Cmca-12 and I41/amd at about 480 GPa. ------------- [url]http://npg.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n7/full/nphys660.html[/url] Computational physics: A quantum puzzle revisited Tadashi Ogitsu1 Nature Physics 3, 452 - 453 (2007) Computational condensed-matter physics acquires a novel compass in the search for unknown stable structures. This global phase-space search algorithm demonstrates its power in solving the complex high-pressure phases of hydrogen. -------- [url]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22905[/url] Pressure-enhanced ortho-para conversion in solid hydrogen up to 58 GPa Jon H. Eggert, Eran Karmon, Russell J. Hemley, Ho-kwang Mao, and Alexander F. Goncharov We measured the ortho-para conversion rate in solid hydrogen by using Raman scattering in a diamond-anvil cell, extending previous measurements by a factor of 60 in pressure. We confirm previous experiments that suggested a decrease in the conversion rate above about 0.5 GPa. We observe a distinct minimum at 3 GPa followed by a drastic increase in the conversion rate to our maximum pressure of 58 GPa. This pressure enhancement of conversion is not predicted by previous theoretical treatments and must be due to a new conversion pathway. [url]http://bjm.scs.uiuc.edu/presentations.php[/url] B. A. Tom, B. J. McCall, Y. Miyamoto, and T. Momose The Index of Refraction of Solid Hydrogen ---------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen[/url] Metallic hydrogen In March of 1996, however, a group of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported that they had serendipitously produced, for about a microsecond and at temperatures of thousands of kelvin and pressures of over a million atmospheres (>100 GPa), the first identifiably metallic hydrogen.[3] It may be possible to produce substantial quantities of metallic hydrogen for practical purposes. The existence has been theorized of a form called 'Metastable Metallic Hydrogen', (abbreviated MSMH) which would not immediately revert to ordinary hydrogen upon the release of pressure. ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0507605[/url] Observability of a projected new state of matter: a metallic superfluid Authors: Egor Babaev, Asle Sudbo, N. W. Ashcroft (Submitted on 26 Jul 2005) The issue to be adressed is if this state could be experimentally observable in principle. We propose four experimental probes for detecting it. In a condensed state and under the action of compression, the electronic charge density associated with this bond (and corresponding pair potential) is expected to be systematically transferred from the intra-molecular regions, to the inter-molecular regions. A weakening both of the intra-molecular potential and the short-range (repulsive) part of the inter-molecular potential is then anticipated. Since these are the interactions which ultimately lead to spatial order, and since there is a concomitant rise in zero-point energies with compressions, it is also to be expected that the melting point will decline, indeed an effect recently reported by Bonev et. al. [6] in very extensive simulations. Further, the continued transference of electron density into the interstitial regions also carries with it the possibility that (exactly as in 4He under ordinary conditions) there may be a range of densities where the ordering energies become quite minor compared to zero-point energies. In this situation the result may be a ground-state liquid as the preferred phase. Importantly, it will also be metallic, because densities are sufficient to induce an insulator-metal transition en route. Such a metallic liquid at temperatures of order 100K is expected to form Cooper pairs of electrons [7]. At lower temperatures also protonic Cooper pairs are expected to form [8]. In liquid metallic deuterium, the deuterons are spin-one bosons which should likewise lead to Bose condensate with no pairing mechanism required. It was recently demonstrated that once deuterons or Cooper pairs of protons are present along with Cooper pairs of electrons, the resulting “super”-state does not then fall into any class of existing quantum fluids [9]. Two key aspects of this two-component condensate are: (i) It features a superfluid mode of co-directed currents of protons and electrons which supports a superflow of mass but no charge transfer, (ii) and a superconducting mode of counter-directed currents of protons and electrons involving dissipationless transfer of charge as well as mass ========== Here is what I found out about neutrons. ======== [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron[/url] Neutron --------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraneutron[/url] A tetraneutron is a hypothesised stable cluster of four neutrons. This cluster of particles is not supported by current models of nuclear forces.[1] However, there is some empirical evidence which suggests this particle does exist. If it does, then it has been suggested that the substance be considered an "element", and be placed on the Periodic Table of the Elements, with an atomic number of 0 (zero). ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0302048[/url] Can Modern Nuclear Hamiltonians Tolerate a Bound Tetraneutron? Authors: Steven C. Pieper (Submitted on 18 Feb 2003 (v1), last revised 21 Feb 2003 (this version, v2)) I show that it does not seem possible to change modern nuclear Hamiltonians to bind a tetraneutron without destroying many other successful predictions of those Hamiltonians. This means that, should a recent experimental claim of a bound tetraneutron be confirmed, our understanding of nuclear forces will have to be significantly changed. I also point out some errors in previous theoretical studies of this problem. ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0401016[/url] Neutron Matter: A Superfluid Gas Authors: S. Y. Chang, J. Morales, Jr., V. R. Pandharipande, D. G. Ravenhall, J. Carlson, Steven C. Pieper, R. B. Wiringa, K. E. Schmidt (Submitted on 9 Jan 2004) ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0609058[/url] Variational Theory of Hot Nucleon Matter Authors: Abhishek Mukherjee, V. R. Pandharipande (Submitted on 19 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 24 Oct 2006 (this version, v2)) ------------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3006[/url] Strongly-Paired Fermions: Cold Atoms and Neutron Matter Authors: Alexandros Gezerlis, J. Carlson (Submitted on 19 Nov 2007) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0611107[/url] QMC calculations of symmetric nuclear matter Authors: S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. Fantoni, K.E. Schmidt (Submitted on 30 Nov 2006) --------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter[/url] neutron degenerate matter ------- [b]When will we see the following headlines?[/b] “Scientist search for Big Bang Substance” “Scientist Re-create the Big Bang Substance” “NASA uses Big Bang Substance to reduce cost of launches” “The universe in a nut shell”

Warm Dense Matter (WDM) = solid hydrogen

[b] I found with my quick search into “warm dense matter” (WDM) that the experimental results of protons under pressure puts a lot present models into question and opens up the possibility of investigating NEW models. Most of this post is made up of links with a few “quotes”. Hopefully, you will get interested and do your own search for answers.[/b] ======== references: [url]http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/News/HEDPReport.pdf[/url] Ronald C. Davidson Chair National Task Force on High Energy Density Physics July 20, 2004 p. 60 - 51 - Experimentally, the study of warm dense matter has proven difficult, as the isolation of samples in this regime is complicated. Indeed, although every density-temperature time history that starts from the solid phase on the way to becoming a plasma goes through this regime, attempts to isolate warm dense matter for study have proven to be a major challenge. [b]New metastable states possible with high energy density materials, such as the long-sought metallic atomic hydrogen, are achievable goals of HED physics.[/b] p. 61 [b]At the extreme densities of the stellar interior, the number of hydrogen atoms per cm3 is 6x10^25, so that on average there is only 0.25 Å (1 Å is 10 billionths of a cm) between atoms, which is smaller than the distance from the hydrogen's proton to the first stable electron orbit. Clearly the electron could not remain in a stable bound orbit around the proton, independent of temperature. [/b] The difficulty presented by warm dense matter arises theoretically from the fact that in this regime there are no obvious expansion parameters, as the usual perturbation expansions in small parameters used in either condensed matter studies [= temperature/(Fermi energy)] or plasma kinetic theories [ = (potential energy)/(kinetic energy)] are no longer valid. [b]Furthermore, density dependent effects, e.g., pressure ionization, become increasingly important as the environment surrounding the ion or atom starts to impinge on internal lattice or atomic structure. [/b] p.89 Super-intense, relativistic laser beams carry light waves with electric field strengths far greater than the internal fields binding electrons to the nucleus. At sufficiently high intensity, not only are atoms literally ripped apart by the huge forces of the light beam, but the liberated electrons themselves acquire an energy which approaches or exceeds their rest energy. Unlike our usual way of describing matter irradiated by light, at these intensities, special relativity must be accounted for in describing the interaction. Exotic relativistic issues come into play including retardation effects, the production of enormous magnetic fields, and plasmas with electrons whose mass varies with time. At high intensities, where free electrons can be accelerated to relativistic energies in one optical cycle, the orbits of bound electrons in ions will be distorted severely, and the magnetic field of the light will participate in the electron and ion dynamics. Furthermore light-light scattering will become important. As a result, we expect that atomic physics will take on very different character to what we usually think of how an atom acts. Indeed, the optics of such relativistic matter will differ from traditional optics as the change of mass of an electron oscillating at these relativistic velocities introduces a nonlinearity, akin to that usually found only in specially designed nonlinear optical media. This phenomena represents a new era of “relativistic nonlinear optics” with applications that could be a widespread as traditional nonlinear optics has demonstrated over the previous 30 years. [b]Furthermore, the acceleration of many electrons to such high velocity results in the production of truly enormous magnetic fields, with strengths perhaps as mush as a million times higher than a typical household refrigerator magnet. [/b] p.94 The frontier in ultra-fast spectroscopy is the study of the motion of electrons bound inside the atom, in orbits close to the nucleus. This new scale is defined by the time it takes the electron in the first Bohr (innermost) orbit of the hydrogen atom to complete one turn around the proton. The period of this orbit — 24 10_18 s, or 24 attoseconds — is at least a factor of a hundred shorter than the duration of the shortest laser pulse. p. 89 Modern ultra-intense, ultra short laser can create extreme material states, corresponding to solid density materials at a few eV energy and 10-100 G’s of pressures. Creation of materials in this “warm dense matter” (WDM) regime is of fundamental interest since materials in this regime falls in between “standard” condensed matter and “plasma” descriptions of mater. The creation of WDM material, together with the use of ultra-short x-rays to probe their initial properties, will provide important experimental data for developing “equation-of-state” description of highly excited materials. Importantly, the subsequent evolution of WDM material (which occur upon expansion of these states as associated with ablation) will provide an important opportunity for studying phase transitions kinetics. WDM states typically correspond to materials driven to the “supercritical fluid” regime of a phase diagram. ----------- A more recent link [url]http://hifweb.lbl.gov/public/AcceleratorWDM/TableOfContents.html[/url] Workshop on Accelerator Driven Warm Dense Matter Physics Four Point Sheraton Hotel Pleasanton, California February 22-24, 2006 -------- Latest link [url]http://hifweb.lbl.gov/wdmschool/[/url] 2008 Warm Dense Matter Winter School The lectures will be tutorials intended for students beginning research work in the field of WDM; they will start from the basics, give clear definitions of the specialized terms, and describe the principal diagnostics and experimental techniques. (See their presentations) =========== [b] “warm dense matter” (WDM) seems like a promising area of research. Under pressure (which we can achieve in experiments in the lab.), it appears that the distance within a nucleon is shorten and that electrons and neutrons cannot occupy the interior of the lattice. (see previous post) [/b] ============ reference 1) [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E5D61439F935A15750C0A960958260[/url] Big Gun Makes Hydrogen Into a Metal By MALCOLM W. BROWNE Published: March 26, 1996 USING a 60-foot-long gun, physicists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory have created a metallic form of hydrogen 2) [url]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html#bohr_radius[/url] Length Scales in Physics John Baez December 23, 2005 .. quantum field theory effects start really mattering for electrons on a distance scale 1/137 the size of the hydrogen atom. We can derive the classical electron radius by working out the electric field outside of a ball having charge equal to that of the electron, e, and radius L, then working out the energy of this electric field, and then setting that energy equal to the electron mass m. Solving for L we get a formula for the electron radius re. In other words, the classical electron radius is the radius the electron would have to have for all of its mass to be due to the electric field it produced, [b]assuming it was a charged shell.[/b] But we want some understanding at a gut level why making the electron heavier would make the hydrogen atom smaller! It's known that this is true, by the way, because one can take a muon, which is just like an electron but 206.77 times heavier (and decays rapidly), and make muonic hydrogen which is about 206.77 times smaller. But WHY? We see at any rate that the Bohr radius can be guessed by essentially classical reasoning together with the uncertainty principle, and this length scale is naturally proportional to an inverse mass scale - the inverse of the electron mass! ========= An interesting link of information. I made some quotes for the other readers. [url]http://physci.llnl.gov/Organization/HDivision/Research/GasGun/Nellis.html[/url] [b]Last Changed Date: 01/21/00[/b] Quest for Metallic Hydrogen Under normal conditions on our planet, molecular hydrogen functions as an insulator, blocking electrical flow. Apply sufficient pressure, theory said, and hydrogen turns metallic, becoming an exceptional conductor of electricity. Theory predicted that metallization would occur when the insulating molecular solid would transform to a metallic monatomic solid at absolute zero--0 degrees kelvin (K) or -460°F. [b]For early metallic hydrogen theorists, "sufficient pressure" was thought to be 0.2 megabars (1 bar is atmospheric pressure at sea level; a megabar, or Mbar, is a million times atmospheric pressure at sea level). Subsequent predictions pushed metallization pressure to as high as 20 Mbar. At the time our experiments were conducted, the prevailing theory predicted 3 Mbar for solid hydrogen at 0 K.[/b] Our Approach In 1991, we began a series of experiments to determine how compression affected the electrical properties of diatomic or molecular hydrogen and deuterium both of which are insulators at ambient temperatures and pressures. Evidence of actual metallization was an unanticipated result of our experiments. It was unexpected for several reasons: (1) we used liquid hydrogen, rather than solid hydrogen that conventional wisdom indicated was required; (2) we applied a methodology--shock compression--that had never before been tried in order to metallize hydrogen; and (3) we were working at higher temperatures (3,000 K) than metallization theory specified. Our Results As shown in Figure 2, we found that from 0.9 to 1.4 Mbar, resistivity in the shocked fluid decreases almost four orders of magnitude (i.e., conductivity increases); from 1.4 to 1.8 Mbar, resistivity is essentially constant at a value typical of that of liquid metals. Our data indicate a continuous transition from a semiconducting to metallic diatomic fluid at 1.4 Mbar, nine-fold compression of initial liquid density, and 3,000 K. [b]Some theorists have speculated that metallic hydrogen produced under laboratory conditions might remain in that state after the enormous pressures required to create it are removed.[/b] At metallization, we calculate that only about 5% of the original molecules have separated into individual atoms of hydrogen, which means that our metallic hydrogen is primarily a molecular fluid. (Observation of this molecular metallic state in our experiments was unexpected. Only the monatomic metallic state was predicted by theory.) Speculations about possibilities for metastable solid metallic hydrogen (MSMH) are discussed below. ( hehehe …You will have to go and read the article.) [b] At high presures metallic fluid hydrogen exists at ~10 times molecular-solid density, or ~0.7 g/cm3 . So, we assume that MSMH will have a comparable density. Thus, its density is comparable to the density of water, is ~3 times lighter than Al and ~10 times lighter than iron.[/b] ============== If you have access to [url]http://publish.aps.org/[/url] then you should be able to read the latest published data.

Solid hydrogen and astrophysic

[b] I then did a search for “ionization” and found dozens of references in astrophysic. It was a surprise (to me), to find that the models of planets, stars, all depend on knowing the properties of hydrogen as a solid. Sure enough,….. the experiments on “warm dense matter” (WDM) are having an impact on astrophysics. Question: Is there a paper that looks at Jupiter and by the process of elimination arrive at the properties of solid hydrogen which could help in the lab. experiments? [/b] ======= Reference [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909168[/url] Modeling Pressure-Ionization of Hydrogen in the Context of Astrophysics Authors: D. Saumon, G. Chabrier, D.J. Wagner, X. Xie (Submitted on 9 Sep 1999) note: not to be ignored Whether pressure ionization of H occurs continuously or through a plasma phase transition PPT remains one of the major unanswered questions in our understanding of the properties of matter under extreme conditions. The answer has profound astrophysical implications. The recent experiments [5,29] have revealed that the current theories for dense fluid hydrogen strongly disagree with each other in the regime of pressure dissociation/ionization. The guidance of experimental data is therefore essential to the development of a good understanding of this phenomenon. This need is most acute for models based on the chemical picture, which depend on experiments for the determination of effective pair potentials. The chemical picture is well-suited for the computation of large EOS tables for astrophysical applications, but models must be calibrated with experimental data if they are to be reliable in the difficult regime of pressure ionization. From this perspective, the recent shock-compression data are extremely valuable and it is hoped that this part of the phase diagram will soon be better charted by new experiments. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3572[/url] Quantum-statistical equation-of-state models of dense plasmas: high-pressure Hugoniot shock adiabats Authors: Jean-Christophe Pain (Submitted on 25 Jun 2007) The need for suitable equation of state (EOS) of high-energydensity matter becomes crucial. The thermodynamics and the hydrodynamics of these systems can not be predicted without a knowledge of the EOS which describes how a material reacts to pressure. In the present work, we consider strongly coupled (non ideal) plasmas, characterized by a high density and/or a low temperature. In such plasmas, ions are strongly correlated, electrons are partially degenerate, the De Broglie wavelength of the electron becomes of the same order of the interparticle distance, … --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0178[/url] Equation of state for dense hydrogen and plasma phase transition Authors: Bastian Holst, Nadine Nettelmann, Ronald Redmer (Submitted on 2 Apr 2007) In this paper we present new results for the equation-of-state (EOS) of dense hydrogen within the chemical picture. The equation-of-state data is used to calculate the pressure and temperature profiles for the interior of Jupiter. Warm dense hydrogen is considered as a partially ionized plasma in the chemical picture. According to the concept of reduced volume, point-like particles cannot penetrate into the volume occupied by atoms and molecules. The PPT is an instability driven by the nonmetal-to-metal transition (pressure ionization). -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505070.pdf[/url] Idealized Slab Plasma approach for the study of Warm Dense Matter Authors: A. Ng (LLNL), T. Ao, F. Perrot, M. W. C. Dharma-wardana (NRC Canada), M. E. Foord (LLNL) (Submitted on 10 May 2005) To allow the study of well-defined WDM states, we have introduced the concept of idealized-slab plasmas that can be realized in the laboratory via (i) the isochoric heating of a solid and (ii) the propagation of a shock wave in a solid. ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412033[/url] Free-energy model for fluid helium at high density Authors: Christophe Winisdoerffer (Leicester University UK, ENS Lyon France), Gilles Chabrier (ENS Lyon France) (Submitted on 6 Dec 2004) These predictions and this phase diagram provide a guide for future dynamical experiments or numerical first-principle calculations aimed at studying the properties of helium at very high density, in particular its metallization. p. 5 For a density n, each atom has a typical available volume n−1/3 so that, as density increases, the levels associated with the highest eigenvalues will move into the continuum. [b]When the density is high enough to disturb even the ground-state, the electrons can no longer remain bound to the nuclei: this is the pressure ionization phenomenon.[/b] We have included the effect of the interactions of surrounding particles on the internal partition function of helium within the so-called occupation probability formalism [19] (OPF). The OPF ensures the statistical-mechanical consistency between the configurational free-energy characterizing the interactions between atoms, Fconf , and the internal free-energy contribution, Fint. The OPF has been extensively presented in various papers (see e.g. [20]) ------------ Dense astrophysical plasmas Authors: G. Chabrier (ENS-Lyon), F. Douchin (ENS-Lyon), A. Y. Potekhin (Ioffe Inst., St.-Petersburg) (Submitted on 20 Nov 2002) We briefly examine the properties of dense plasmas characteristic of the atmospheres of neutron stars and of the interior of massive white dwarfs. These astrophysical bodies are natural laboratories to study respectively the problem of pressure ionization of hydrogen in a strong magnetic field and the crystallization of the quantum one-component-plasma at finite temperature. ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9703007[/url] Liquid metallic hydrogen and the structure of brown dwarfs and giant planets Authors: W. B. Hubbard, T. Guillot, J.I. Lunine, A. Burrows, D. Saumon, M.S. Marley, R.S. Freedman (Submitted on 2 Mar 1997) Electron-degenerate, pressure-ionized hydrogen (usually referred to as metallic hydrogen) is the principal constituent of brown dwarfs, the long-sought objects which lie in the mass range between the lowest-mass stars (about eighty times the mass of Jupiter) and the giant planets. The thermodynamics and transport properties of metallic hydrogen are important for understanding the properties of these objects, which, unlike stars, continually and slowly cool from initial nondegenerate (gaseous) states. … developments in high-pressure technology have allowed new experimental studies of hydrogen in the megabar pressure range7, and developments in high pressure theory have given new information about possible phase transitions in hydrogen in the relevant pressure range8. … The relevant parts of the hydrogen phase diagram are shown in Fig. 1. This diagram is computed assuming pure hydrogen … The solid circle shows an experimentally-observed transition to a metallic state of hydrogen at P = 1.4 Mbar and T = 3000 K. ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511803[/url] Dense plasmas in astrophysics: from giant planets to neutron stars Authors: G. Chabrier (Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon, CRAL), D. Saumon (LANL), A. Potekhin (Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, St Petersburg) (Submitted on 29 Nov 2005) We briefly examine the properties of dense plasmas characteristic of the interior of giant planets and the atmospheres of neutron stars. Special attention is devoted to the equation of state of hydrogen and helium at high density and to the effect of magnetic fields on the properties of dense matter. ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612145[/url] Magnetic Hydrogen Atmosphere Models and the Neutron Star RX J1856.5-3754 Authors: Wynn C. G. Ho, David L. Kaplan, Philip Chang, Matthew van Adelsberg, Alexander Y. Potekhin (Submitted on 6 Dec 2006) RX J1856.5-3754 is one of the brightest nearby isolated neutron stars, and considerable observational resources have been devoted to it. However, current models are unable to satisfactorily explain the data. We show that our latest models of a thin, magnetic, partially ionized hydrogen atmosphere on top of a condensed surface can fit the entire spectrum, from X-rays to optical, of RX J1856.5-3754, within the uncertainties. ------------ High Energy Density (HED) Science [url]http://www.plasmas.org/fusion-icf.htm[/url] Web Sites for high energy density physics and accelerators --------- [url]https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/science_at_the_extremes/[/url] Science at the Extremes [b]When laboratory experiments begin at the National Ignition Facility in 2010,[/b] researchers will be able for the first time to study the effects on matter of the extreme temperatures, pressures and densities that exist naturally only in the stars and deep inside the planets. Results from this relatively new field of research, known as high energy density (HED) science, will mark the dawn of a new era of science. HED experiments at NIF promise to revolutionize our understanding of astrophysics and space physics, hydrodynamics, nuclear astrophysics, material properties, plasma physics, nonlinear optical physics, radiation sources and radiative properties and other areas of science. [url]http://physci.llnl.gov/divisions/vdivision/vdivision.html[/url] high energy density (HED) physics ------------ [url]https://lasers.llnl.gov/[/url] Creating a miniature star on Earth: that's the goal of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world's largest laser. When completed in 2009, NIF will focus the intense energy of 192 giant laser beams on a BB-sized target filled with hydrogen fuel – fusing, or igniting, the hydrogen atoms' nuclei. -------------- [url]https://lasers.llnl.gov/missions/understanding_the_universe.php[/url] Understanding the Universe Some of humankind's greatest intellectual challenges have to do with understanding how the universe began, how it works, and how it will end. A recent study by the National Research Council, Connecting Quarks to the Cosmos, produced a list of eleven questions that are crucial to advancing this understanding. Research at the National Ignition Facility could help answer five of these questions: What is the Nature Of Dark Energy? Did Einstein Have the Last Word on Gravity? How Do Cosmic Accelerators Work And What Are They Accelerating? What Are the New States of Matter at Exceedingly High Density and Temperature? How Were the Elements from Iron to Uranium Made? ------------ [url]http://www.sandia.gov/NNSA/ASC/univ/psaap/plasma_physics.doc[/url] Challenges in High Energy Density Physics: Plasma Physics in the 21st Century April 19, 2006 --------------- [url]http://photonscience.slac.stanford.edu/lusi/instruments/hed.php[/url] High Energy Density Science Instrument PURPOSE: The High Energy Density (HED) Science instrument at the LCLS will enable the detailed study of states of matter created when normal condensed matter is suddenly heated to very high temperatures, well above melting. During the brief period (picoseconds) before this matter flies apart, it can form transient phases with properties very different both from the low-temperature condensed phase and from the high-temperature rarified plasma phase. These so-called HED phases are of interest to scientists studying astrophysics, planetary physics, fusion energy and the transition region from condensed matter to hot dense plasmas. Studying them experimentally has been nearly impossible in the past, and theoretical treatment is so complex as to be unreliable. ======= new reference [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0701313[/url] Properties of Dense Fluid Hydrogen and Helium in Giant Gas Planets Authors: Jan Vorberger, Isaac Tamblyn, Stanimir A. Bonev, Burkhard Militzer (Submitted on 15 Jan 2007) The physical system reminiscent to the inner mantle of Jupiter, shown in Fig. 1b), can be characterized as a metallic fluid. The density is much higher, molecules are dissociated as a result of the increased pressure. The electrons are delocalized as a result of the Pauli exclusion principle and form an electron cloud that extends through the simulation cell.

Solid hydrogen and Cosmology

Here is what I have learned [b] ,….. the experiments on “warm dense matter” (WDM) will have impact on Cosmology. Ionized might be a good word to describe the universe prior decoupling. There will be new calculations to try to understand the universe before decoupling (400,000 years) Prior to the CMB, the universe was mainly 10^80 hydrogens that would have cooled and gone through the “warm dense matter” (WDM) phase: There are no neutrons or electrons in the “warm dense matter” (WDM) phase of hydrogen. [/b] ========= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909275[/url] A New Calculation of the Recombination Epoch Authors: Sara Seager, Dimitar D. Sasselov, Douglas Scott (Submitted on 15 Sep 1999 (v1), last revised 16 Sep 1999 (this version, v2)) Modern codes for evolving the ionization fraction xe = ne/nH (where ne is the number density of electrons and nH is the total number density of H nuclei) have been based almost entirely on the single differential equation introduced 30 years ago, with a more accurate recombination coefficient, but no other basic improvement. We believe our work represents the most accurate picture to date of how exactly the Universe as a whole became neutral. In the canonical Hot Big Bang picture, the recombination epoch is when the Universe became cool enough for protons to capture electrons and form neutral hydrogen. ======== [b] Note: New data indicates that there was He III (solid) then He II followed by He I. The He III (solid) phase does not have any electrons or neutrons. (it is ionized) Under this scenario there could be NEW PLAUSABLE MODELS of the early universe, before decoupling.[/b] 1. Phase I Scalar This is the phase for which we have no evidence. It is open for speculation. Therefore, it can be speculated to be infinite in time and volume. It can be speculated to be in the size range from Planck Scale to 10 ^-18. It can be speculated that the dimensions are only two. In this range you can speculate to have infinite number of fluctuations with OUR section of the universe expanding into the next phase. 2. Phase II Quarks This the phase of the universe (OURS) for which we have evidence. The remainder could still be in Phase I and until it crosses into our cosmic horizon, it is irrelevant. The size range is between 10^-18 to 10^-15. The minimum length is 10^-18. The universe could have been an infinite “bath” of quarks and gluons for an infinite amount of time. As a result there is no need for cosmic expansion (Accelerated inflation) It could have bounced (LQC/LQG) in this condition forever). However, OUR section of the universe expanded to the next phase and quarks acquired mass. There was a coincident of circumstances in our region, that allowed the bounce to expand, (greater than the confinement size of quarks), and cool. The quarks had to combine to make a hydrogen solid. The duration of this expansion phase are determined by what quarks do. [b]Under these MODELS, there is no need to go through a “nuclear fusion/fireball” phase in between the QUARK AND HYDROGEN PHASES. A scenario of decreasing pressure and decreasing density does not produce “nucleosynthesis/fireball”. It is only under constant pressure and gravity that you get nucleosynthesis. [/b] 3. Phase III Hydrogen The neutrons and electrons could be “manufactured/ionized” at a later stage of expansion (He III followed by He II followed by He I), to produce the photons that give the CMB and to account for the fact that the universe was still ionized up until z 10. 4. Phase IV Post decoupling (CMB) NOW A “chunk” of solid hydrogen (He III) would be a great attractor for the free hydrogen, electrons, neutrons, etc. to gather around to make “black holes, quark stars, neutron stars, etc.” [b]I’ll be looking in the literature to see if these models gets “fleshed out” by a “math kid” and survive.[/b] ========== Martin Bojowald has just made a summary of what is being done in Loop Quantum Cosmology. The area that they are investigating is the early universe, before quarks acquired mass, the scalar phase. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4274[/url] Loop Quantum Cosmology: Effective theories and oscillating universes Authors: Martin Bojowald, Reza Tavakol (Submitted on 28 Feb 2008) In particular we discuss how such corrections can allow the construction of non-singular emergent scenarios for the origin of the universe, which are past-eternal, oscillating and naturally emerge into an inflationary phase. These scenarios provide a physically plausible picture for the origin and early phases of the universe, which is in principle testable. Thus clearly a viable cosmological scenario needs to deal with both questions: providing mechanisms to remove classical singularities as well as initiating a successful phase of inflation (or an alternative to provide structure formation). Importantly, it has been shown that such oscillations can push the field high enough up the potential to successfully set the initial conditions for the onset of inflation [33] (see also [43] for an analysis in the presence of other matter sources). Oscillations also arise if one keeps the scalar field massless and non-interacting but allows positive spatial curvature, as was numerically studied in [49] for initial states which are unsqueezed. Although back-reaction still occurs, it is only active briefly at each recollapse since the bounce phases are still well described by the solvable model. At present the complete set of corrections is known precisely only for the case of a free massless scalar in a flat isotropic geometry [24, 25]. In particular, the emergent universe scenario sketched here, based on effective equations, provides an example of how LQC effects can potentially give rise to physically reasonable non-singular behaviour. The important features of this scenario are that it is non-singular, past-eternal, and oscillating. Importantly, the oscillations have a crucial function, providing a mechanism for setting the initial conditions for successful inflation. Furthermore, this scenario is in principle observationally testable. The above discussion has demonstrated the potential of LQC to provide a unified framework to deal with the questions of origin and the early inflationary phase of the universe. ========= reference [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411012[/url] Primordial Density Perturbation in Effective Loop Quantum Cosmology Authors: Golam Mortuza Hossain (Submitted on 1 Nov 2004 (v1), last revised 9 May 2005 (this version, v3)) The observed anisotropy in the CMB sky corresponds to the density perturbation on the last scattering surface. The last scattering surface broadly demarcate the end of radiation domination era to the beginning of matter domination era. On last scattering surface they will corresponds to the modes which are well inside the horizon at the time of decoupling. Being smaller in wavelength these mode will subtend smaller angle in present day sky. Naturally these mode will corresponds to the higher multi-pole number. Also if one considers sufficiently narrow bands in these part of spectrum then one can avoid additional modification coming from the sub-horizon evolution of density perturbation in the period between their re-entry and the decoupling. To infer the property of primordial density perturbation from the observed angular power spectrum of CMB, one needs to know the evolution of the universe for the period between the decoupling and the present day universe. Since major fraction of today’s energy density is believed to be coming from mysterious dark matter and dark energy then it is quite obvious that there will be a considerable influence of them on the inferred primordial power spectrum. -------- [b]Note: Hex. packing or random packing also assumes variations in the energy density which would result in variations in the power spectrum.[/b] -------- [b] In order to have a successful inflation in the standard scenario, generally one requires multi-level of fine tuning of field parameters. In other words one faces several kind of naturalness problems to achieve a successful inflation. 1. The first one is to start inflation. 2. The second one is to sustain inflation. 3. The third one is to generate sufficient expansion (to solve horizon problem and others). 4. The fourth one is to end inflation. 5. The fifth one is to produce small amplitude for primordial density perturbation.[/b] Since the observed part of CMB angular power spectrum generally corresponds to early period of inflation then it may well be the situation where the observed part of the CMB angular power spectrum corresponds to the loop quantum cosmology driven inflationary period. It is worthwhile to emphasize that high amount of expansion in this scenario is required not to solve horizon problem (being non-singular this model avoids horizon problem [22]) rather to avoid a different kind of problem. We have seen that the ‘initial size’ of universe was typically order of Planck units and the corresponding energy scale was also typically order of Planck units. During relativistic particle (radiation) dominated era energy scale falls of typically with inverse power of the associated length scale. It is then difficult to understand why the universe is so large (∼ 1060Lp) today but still it has relatively very high energy scale (∼ 10−30Mp). During inflationary period, on the other hand, the energy scale remains almost constant whereas the length scale grows almost exponentially with coordinate time. It is now clear that we can avoid this discrepancy between energy scale and the length scale of the universe provided there existed an inflationary period with sufficiently long duration in early universe. Now if the observed power spectrum turns out to be not in agreement with the computed power spectrum, then one should conclude that the phase of inflation corresponding to the observed window couldn’t possibly be driven by loop quantum cosmology modification. It may then restrict the allowed choices for the ambiguity parameter j. Consequently it will be an important issue to understand within the framework of isotropic loop quantum cosmology with minimally coupled scalar matter field, why the observed universe today is so large but still it has sufficiently high energy scale. -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3490[/url] Structure formation and the origin of dark energy Authors: Golam Mortuza Hossain (Submitted on 21 Sep 2007) To summarize, we have argued that the origin of dark energy can be understood as a consequence of large scale structure formation. This explanation of dark energy does not require any exotic matter source nor a fine tuned cosmological constant. ---------- A search on spire for SHAPOSHNIKOV , M resulted in 216 hits. [url]http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+a+shaposhnikov+,+m&SKIP=0[/url] ------------- [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755[/url] The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton Authors: F.L. Bezrukov, M.E. Shaposhnikov (Submitted on 19 Oct 2007 (v1), last revised 9 Jan 2008 (this version, v2)) We argue that the Higgs boson of the Standard Model can lead to inflation and produce cosmological perturbations in accordance with observations. An essential requirement is the non-minimal coupling of the Higgs scalar field to gravity; no new particle besides already present in the electroweak theory is required. This provides an extra argument in favour of absence of a new energy scale between the electroweak and Planck scales, advocated in [32]. -------- [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0708.3550[/url] Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scales? Authors: Mikhail Shaposhnikov (Submitted on 27 Aug 2007) We argue that there may be no intermediate particle physics energy scale between the Planck mass $M_{Pl}\sim 10^{19}$ GeV and the electroweak scale $M_W \sim 100$ GeV. At the same time, the number of problems of the Standard Model (neutrino masses and oscillations, dark matter, baryon asymmetry of the Universe, strong CP-problem, gauge coupling unification, inflation) could find their solution at $M_{Pl}$ or $M_W$. The crucial experimental predictions of this point of view are outlined. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4269[/url] Electroweak Model Without A Higgs Particle Authors: J. W. Moffat (Submitted on 26 Sep 2007 (v1), last revised 5 Oct 2007 (this version, v3)) An electroweak model is formulated in a finite, four-dimensional quantum field theory without a Higgs particle. The W and Z masses are induced from the electroweak symmetry breaking of one-loop vacuum polarization graphs. The theory contains only the observed particle spectrum of the standard model. If the Tevatron and LHC accelerator experiments fail to detect a Higgs particle, then a physically consistent theory of electroweak symmetry breaking such as the one studied here, in which no Higgs particle is included in the particle spectrum, will be required to understand the important phenomenon of how the W and Z bosons and fermions acquire mass. ------------ [b]Note: The minimum length would be 10^-18. Cosmology will need to take this scale into account.[/b] -------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarks[/url] Quarks Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces. Isolated quarks are never found naturally; they are almost always found in groups of two (mesons) or groups of three (baryons) called hadrons. This is a direct consequence of confinement. ---------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation[/url] cosmic inflation cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. --------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion[/url] nuclear nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple atomic particles join together to form a heavier nucleus ----------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis[/url] Nucleosynthesis Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting nucleons (protons and neutrons). The primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang as it cooled below ten million degrees. ---------------- [url]https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug07/Bernstein.html[/url] Nucleosynthesis ----------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized[/url] Ionization Ionization is the physical process of converting an atom or molecule into an ion by adding or removing charged particles such as electrons or other ions [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length[/url]) Orders_of_magnitude ------------ Jean-Pierre Luminet has analysed the CMB and projected the results into the future and he came up with [b]“The Poincaré Dodecahedral Space model”.[/b] The projection of their analysis is into the future. It is based on the “past” topological conditions prior the CMB. Therefore, as said by Jean-Pierre Luminet, “… alternative explanations may still be found, the simplest one being …”, ( here I insert another possibility), [b]we are observing the structure prior the CMB which is made up of hydrogen (H III). [/b] ---------- Reference [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2236[/url] The Shape and Topology of the Universe Authors: Jean-Pierre Luminet (Submitted on 15 Feb 2008) “Thus the CMB temperature fluctuations look like Chladni patterns resulting from a complicated three-dimensional drumhead that vibrated for 380 000 years. [b]They yield a wealth of information about the physical conditions that prevailed in the early Universe,[/b] as well as present geometrical properties like space curvature and topology. More precisely, density fluctuations may be expressed as combinations of the vibrational modes of space, just as the vibration of a drumhead may be expressed as a combination of the drumhead's harmonics.” -------- [url]http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/feb08/PDS.en.shtml[/url] The Poincaré Dodecahedral Space model "… the last data obtained by the WMAP satellite and found a topological signal characteristic of the PDS geometry." --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0217[/url] A new analysis of Poincaré dodecahedral space model Authors: S. Caillerie, M. Lachièze-Rey, J.-P. Luminet, R. Lehoucq, A. Riazuelo, J. Weeks (Submitted on 2 May 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Oct 2007 (this version, v2)) "… Such a distribution of matter fluctuations generates a temperature distribution on the CMB that results from different physical effects. If we subtract foreground contamination, it will mainly be generated by the ordinary Sachs-Wolfe (OSW) effect at large scales, resulting from the energy exchanges between the CMB photons and the time-varying gravitational fields on the last scattering surface (LSS)." "Clearly the power spectrum alone cannot confirm a multi-connected cosmological model. Although the PDS model fits the WMAP3 power spectrum better than the standard flat infinite model does, alternative explanations may still be found, the simplest one being an intrinsically non-scale invariant spectrum." -------- A search of physicsforums, for solid hydrogen, did not yield any discussions on solid hydrogen. It looks like that there are no records of any of the mentors/gurus discussing this subject. I found a few interesting links. --------- -------- Interesting links The following site tries to keep updated with cosmology. [url]http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm[/url] First Stars --------- [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=69265&highlight=hydrogen[/url] Electron probability in oscillating hydrogen molecule -------- [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060508112217.htm[/url] Astronomers Find Molecular Hydrogen At Edge Of Universe --------- [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080112161841.htm[/url] Galaxy 'Hunting' Made Easy: Quasars Light The Way -------- [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html#c4[/url] Proton-Proton Fusion ======== [b]Cough… cough … Garth model might be able to incorporate H III and have a head start on the NEW PLAUSIBLE MODELS.[/b] ======== [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82628[/url] Self Creation Cosmology -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502370[/url] A case for nucleosynthesis in slowly evolving models Authors: Geetanjali Sethi, Pranav Kumar, Sanjay Pandey, Daksh Lohiya (Submitted on 18 Feb 2005) --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9902022[/url] Nucleosynhthesis in a Simmering Universe Authors: Daksh Lohiya, Annu Batra, Shobhit Mahajan, Amitabha Mukherjee (Delhi University) (Submitted on 9 Feb 1999) ========== On this side of the CMB, (now), we got to deal with the Coulomb barrier that would normally keep positive nuclei from coming too close. However, in the early universe (before the CMB) there was NO Coulomb barrier that would normally keep positive nuclei from coming too close. Everything started from a bath of quarks. All the protons were within the Coulomb barrier. The universe had not expanded enough for the protons to be outside of the Coulomb barrier. I wouldn’t, but if you want to put in a Coulomb barrier you will have to put it around the 10^80 protons. Nucleosynhthesis does not occur in an environment of expanding space. (ie. Increasing the distance between the protons. decreasing pressure and decreasing temperature.) I would be interested in reading an experiment on Nucleosynhthesis that claims “ignition” under those conditions. Therefore, as the pressure on the hydrogen decreased, it changed to H II, to H I, and something happened that produced photons, neutrons and set up the Coulomb barrier. ======== references (for different level of experts) [url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009A312-037F-1448-837F83414B7F014D&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006[/url] The First Few Microseconds [b]“…. so the quarks and gluons should remain tightly coupled in their liquid embrace. On this issue, we must await the verdict of experiment, which may well bring other surprises.”[/b] ---------- Coulomb barrier [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier[/url] Coulomb barrier --------- [url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/coubar.html[/url] In the sun, the proton-proton cycle of fusion is presumed to proceed at a much lower temperature because of the extremely high density and high population of particles. ------- [url]http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/StarPhys/coulomb.html[/url] --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9708036v1[/url] Quantum Tunneling in Nuclear Fusion Authors: A.B. Balantekin (Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA), N. Takigawa (Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan) (Submitted on 19 Aug 1997) Recent theoretical advances in the study of heavy ion fusion reactions below the Coulomb barrier are reviewed. The current status of the fusion of unstable nuclei and very massive systems are briefly discussed. ----------- [url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6852/full/413144a0.html[/url] Letters to Nature Unexpected inhibition of fusion in nucleus–nucleus collisions A. C. Berriman, D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, C. R. Morton, R. D. Butt & J. O. Newton Received 28 March 2001; Accepted 10 July 2001 These results defy interpretation within the standard picture of nuclear fusion and fission. Note: In the early universe the high density of protons are even higher and the result is H III (solid hydrogen). --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0110065[/url] Surface diffuseness anomaly in heavy-ion fusion potentials Authors: K. Hagino, M. Dasgupta, I.I. Gontchar, D.J. Hinde, C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton (Submitted on 25 Oct 2001) --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/9901003[/url] Fusion versus Breakup: Observation of Large Fusion Suppression for ^9Be + ^{208}Pb Authors: M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, R. D. Butt, R. M. Anjos, A.C. Berriman, N. Carlin, P.R.S. Gomes, C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton, A. Szanto de Toledo, K. Hagino (Submitted on 6 Jan 1999 (v1), last revised 12 Jan 1999 (this version, v2)) ---------- AND finally an OLD report May 11, 2001 [url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=pressure-turns-nitrogen-g[/url] Pressure Turns Nitrogen Gas into Solid Semiconductors “The results of this study confirmed theories that were used to predict new properties, such as high-temperature superconductivity in metallic hydrogen. The researchers initially wanted to convert hydrogen in this manner and they hope to eventually do so.” --------- AND now something NEW [url]http://www.gl.ciw.edu/~hemley/index.html[/url] Check out his presentations (slow in loading) -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0410425[/url] A quantum fluid of metallic hydrogen suggested by first-principles calculations Authors: Stanimir A. Bonev, Eric Schwegler, Tadashi Ogitsu, Giulia Galli (Submitted on 17 Oct 2004) ========= I'm still learning and looking for information. All inputs will be appreciated. Jal

How were quarks or hydrogen made?

How were quarks or hydrogen made in the early universe? To try to find out I did a search of Baryogenesis. The short answer ….. nobody knows. With pressure, it seems that the “phase change” can happen at lower temperatures then what is presently “modeled”. the "phase change” can continue while the pressure is decreasing. (AFFLECK-DINE BARYOGENESIS might be on to something??) ------------- [url]http://aps.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Baryogenesis/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=6c7660c59b1f2d27[/url] Showing results 1 through 25 (of 902 total) for all:Baryogenesis -------------- [url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=53648[/url] The 42 faces of baryogenesis there are actually 42 different mechanisms proposed for baryogenesis. the list is very interesting, so I reproduce it here 1. GUT baryogenesis 2. GUT baryogenesis after preheating 3. Baryogenesis from primordial black holes 4. String scale baryogenesis 5. Affleck-Dine (AD) baryogenesis 6. Hybridized AD baryogenesis 7. No-scale AD baryogenesis 8. Single field baryogenesis 9. Electroweak (EW) baryogenesis 10. Local EW baryogenesis 11. Non-local EW baryogenesis 12. EW baryogenesis at preheating 13. SUSY EW baryogenesis 14. String mediated EW baryogenesis 15. Baryogenesis via leptogenesis 16. Inflationary baryogenesis 17. Resonant baryogenesis 18. Spontaneous baryogenesis 19. Coherent baryogenesis 20. Gravitational baryogenesis 21. Defect mediated baryogenesis 22. Baryogenesis from long cosmic strings 23. Baryogenesis from short cosmic strings 24. Baryogenesis from collapsing loops 25. Baryogenesis through collapse of vortons 26. Baryogenesis through axion domain walls 27. Baryogenesis through QCD domain walls 28. Baryogenesis through unstable domain walls 29. Baryogenesis from classical force 30. Baryogenesis from electrogenesis 31. B-ball baryogenesis 32. Baryogenesis from CPT breaking 33. Baryogenesis through quantum gravity 34. Baryogenesis via neutrino oscillations 35. Monopole baryogenesis 36. Axino induced baryogenesis 37. Gravitino induced baryogenesis 38. Radion induced baryogenesis 39. Baryogenesis in large extra dimensions 40. Baryogenesis by brane collision 41. Baryogenesis via density fluctuations 42. Baryogenesis from hadronic jets ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609145[/url] Baryogenesis Pedagogical lectures on baryogenesis, with emphasis on the electroweak phase transition and electroweak baryogenesis. --------- [url]http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0710.5857[/url] Baryogenesis -- 40 Years Later Authors: Wilfried Buchmüller (Submitted on 31 Oct 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Nov 2007 (this version, v2)) ------------ Affleck-Dine baryogenesis [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=Affleck-Dine+baryogenesis&qid=12041733786062cr213.423nN-1719605108&byDate=1[/url] Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 432. ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703275[/url] Preheating and Affleck-Dine leptogenesis after thermal inflation Authors: Gary N. Felder, Hyunbyuk Kim, Wan-Il Park, Ewan D. Stewart (Submitted on 26 Mar 2007) In addition to demonstrating a crucial aspect of our model, it also opens the more general possibility of low energy Affleck-Dine baryogenesis. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Leptogenesis/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] Showing results 1 through 25 (of 614 total) for all:Leptogenesis ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2962[/url] Leptogenesis Authors: Sacha Davidson, Enrico Nardi, Yosef Nir (Submitted on 20 Feb 2008) Leptogenesis is a class of scenarios where the baryon asymmetry of the Universe is produced from a lepton asymmetry generated in the decays of a heavy sterile neutrino. We explain the motivation for leptogenesis. We review the basic mechanism, and describe subclasses of models. We then focus on recent developments in the understanding of leptogenesis: finite temperature effects, spectator processes, and in particular the significance of flavor physics. -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3972[/url] Effects of reheating on leptogenesis Authors: F. Hahn-Woernle, M. Plumacher (Submitted on 25 Jan 2008) We study the evolution of a cosmological baryon asymmetry in leptogenesis when the right-handed neutrinos are produced in inflaton decays. By performing a detailed numerical study over a broad range of inflaton-neutrino couplings we show that the resulting asymmetry can be larger by two orders of magnitude or more than in thermal leptogenesis, if the reheating temperature T_{RH} is of the same order as the right-handed neutrino mass M_1. [b]Hence, the lower limit on the baryogenesis temperature obtained in thermal leptogenesis can be relaxed accordingly.[/b] As we shall see, the lower bound on the reheating temperature can be relaxed by as much as three orders of magnitude in the most interesting parameter range of strong washout. In particular, we investigated the interplay between inflation and leptogenesis [b]by considering a decay chain[/b] where the inflaton first exclusively decays into heavy right-handed neutrinos which then decay into standard model lepton and Higgs doublets, thereby reheating the universe and creating the baryon asymmetry of the universe. ========== [b]Question: From what I understand, there is a scalar phase where everything is moving at the speed of light, which is followed by an expansion phase that makes the quarks. Irregardless of the names given, (inflaton, neutrinos, etc.), the models assume that there are scalars that are still present and that these are responsible for the thermal bath. This would be before the production of protons, the pp chain reaction, which happens only under constant pressure and temperature (ie. The stars). The suggestion is that there is an interaction between two theoretical particles, (inflaton, right hand neutrinos) which produces the particles that we know. Can the radiation, which produced the CMB, be produced at this early phase? [/b]

Quark-gluon liquid --> solid hydrogen

I could not find a discussion of Quark-Gluon liquid on this forum. I’ve always assumed that whatever I thought of has been thought of before me and that someone with more education and dedication has worked out the details. I have not been disappointed. My search has been facilitated by the web. (You could say that I’m barely a teenager.) hehehe I’m just an amateur discovering how “the wheel” was invented/made. If you do not like my “popularization style” of communicating then [b]Do read the following paper.[/b] and give me your para-phrasing. [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0801.4256&qid=12050773877292cr213.423nN-1718681472&qs=quark-gluon+liquid&byDate=1[/url] The Phase Diagram of Strongly-Interacting Matter Authors: P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Wambach (Submitted on 28 Jan 2008) In this article we discuss physical aspects of the phase diagram, its relation to the evolution of the early universe as well as the inner core of neutron stars. We also summarize recent progress in the experimental study of hadronic or quark-gluon matter under extreme conditions with ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. ====== Here is my para-phrasing. [b]1. Phase I Scalar This is the phase for which we have no evidence. It is open for speculation. Therefore, it can be speculated to be infinite in time and volume. It can be speculated to be in the size range from Planck Scale to 10 ^-18. It can be speculated that the dimensions are only two. In this range you can speculate to have infinite number of fluctuations with OUR section of the universe expanding into the next phase. 2. Phase II Quarks This the phase of the universe (OURS) for which we have evidence. The remainder could still be in Phase I and until it crosses into our cosmic horizon, it is irrelevant. The size range is between 10^-18 to 10^-15. The minimum length is 10^-18. The universe could have been an infinite “bath” of quarks and gluons (liquid) for an infinite amount of time. As a result there is no need for cosmic expansion (Accelerated inflation) It could have bounced (LQC/LQG) in this condition forever). However, OUR section of the universe expanded to the next phase and quarks acquired mass. There was a coincident of circumstances in our region, that allowed the bounce to expand, (greater than the confinement size of quarks), and cool. The quarks had to combine to make a hydrogen solid. The duration of this expansion phase are determined by what quarks do. Under these MODELS, there is no need to go through a “nuclear fusion/fireball” phase in between the QUARK AND HYDROGEN PHASES. A scenario of decreasing pressure and decreasing density does not produce “nucleosynthesis/fireball”. It is only under constant pressure and gravity that you get nucleosynthesis. 3. Phase III Hydrogen The neutrons and electrons could be “manufactured/ionized” at a later stage of expansion (He III followed by He II followed by He I), to produce the photons that give the CMB and to account for the fact that the universe was still ionized up until z 10. 4. Phase IV Post decoupling (CMB) NOW A “chunk” of solid hydrogen (He III) would be a great attractor for the free hydrogen, electrons, neutrons, etc. to gather around to make “black holes, quark stars, neutron stars, etc.”[/b] ========== [b]A search of Quark-gluon_plasma at arxiv.org gave 112 hit for 2008[/b] [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=+quark-gluon_plasma&qid=12050205851282cr213.423nN2054076167&byDate=1[/url] Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 6738. Here is a sample --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0705v1[/url] Realistic Equations of State for the Primeval Universe Authors: R. Aldrovandi, R.R. Cuzinatto, L. G. Medeiros (Submitted on 4 Jan 2008) ---------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1619v2[/url] Overview and Perspectives in Nuclear Physics Authors: Wolfram Weise (Submitted on 9 Jan 2008 (v1), last revised 14 Jan 2008 (this version, v2)) ------------- [b]Here is a new way of searching. COOL![/b] [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=quark-gluon+liquid&qid=12050773877292cr213.423nN-1718681472&byDate=1[/url] Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 1391. Here is a sample [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0802.3552&qid=12050773877292cr213.423nN-1718681472&qs=quark-gluon+liquid&byDate=1[/url] The Fluid Nature of Quark-Gluon Plasma Authors: W.A. Zajc (Submitted on 25 Feb 2008) The current status of the RHIC experimental studies is presented, with a special emphasis on the fluid properties of the created matter, which may in fact be the most perfect fluid ever studied in the laboratory. ========== This is cool! [b]By releasing the pressure and lowering the temp the Quark-Gluon liquid turns into a solid. (H III) I wonder what impact it will have on the timeline of the B.B.?[/b] ============ Since I don’t like inflation, then with my limited knowledge, I will re-interpret the time it took for inflation to occur as [b] the time it took for the Quark-gluon_plasma (liquid) phase to change to the protons ( H III, solid hydrogen)[/b]. There is no limit to how long the Quark-gluon_plasma (liquid) phase lasted and as a result there is homogeneous and isotropic. I think of the phase change happening simultaneously so that there is enough Quark-gluon_plasma (liquid) to account for the observed abundance of protons etc. [b]It would be the time needed for the scalars to go from the speed of light, curl up, become a particle, get their partners and get mass. [/b] I prefer a scenario without the inflation phase because “inflation” seems to cause more problems than it cures. Going from a scalar to a quark phase to a hadron (hydrogen) phase seems the simplest. Holding the Baryogenesis or leptogenesis phase in a balanced state seems to be a much simpler solution to obtain a homogeneous and isotropic state and it does not require inflation. The quarks can circulate in the whole universe, for as long as you like, and bounce around, but no farther than the confinement of the quarks, (otherwise you would make a proton). When that occurs, you get the phase change and the extra symmetry. The time line “fine tuning” problems disappear. ======== The bouncing (fluctuation), without a singularity, has been taken as a serious model. [url]http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/cosmology/wmap_5yr_cosmo.pdf[/url] FIVE-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE (WMAP1) OBSERVATIONS: COSMOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION ======== [B]Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) occurs 13 times (for example, on p. 31 and fig. 15, p. 36 and p. 43)[/B] p.6 On the other hand, an inflationary expansion may not be the only way to solve cosmological puzzles and create primordial fluctuations. Contraction of the primordial universe followed by a bounce to expansion can, in principle, make a set of predictions that are qualitatively similar to those of inflation models (Khoury et al. 2001, 2002a,b; Khoury et al. 2003; Buchbinder et al. 2007; Buchbinder et al. 2007; Koyama & Wands 2007; Koyama et al. 2007; Creminelli & Senatore 2007). [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702165v2[/url] A smooth bouncing cosmology with scale invariant spectrum Authors: Paolo Creminelli (ICTP, Trieste), Leonardo Senatore (Harvard U.) (Submitted on 20 Feb 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Nov 2007 (this version, v2)) The model represents an explicit and predictive alternative to inflation, although, at present, it is clearly less compelling. --------- p.16 There is also a possibility that non-Gaussianity can be used to test alternatives to inflation. In a collapsing universe followed by a bounce, there exists a duality relation, with regard to the slow-roll parameter, between this scenario and the conventional inflationary scenario. Inflation models with featureless scalar-field potentials usually predict that PR(k) is nearly a power-law (Kosowsky & Turner 1995). [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1067[/url] The Phase Transition to Slow-roll Eternal Inflation Authors: Paolo Creminelli (ICTP, Trieste), Sergei Dubovsky (Harvard U., Physics Dept., and Moscow, INR), Alberto Nicolis (Columbia U.), Leonardo Senatore (Harvard U., Physics Dept.), Matias Zaldarriaga (Harvard U., Physics Dept., and Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. Astrophys.) (Submitted on 7 Feb 2008) ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0467v1[/url] Large Non-Gaussianity Implication for Curvaton Scenario Authors: Qing-Guo Huang (Submitted on 3 Jan 2008) p.14 The curvature parameter at the beginning of inflation must be below of order unity, as inflation would not begin otherwise. However, it is plausible that begin k was not too much smaller than 1; otherwise, we have to explain why it was so small before inflation, and probably we would have to explain it by inflation before inflation. In that case Ntot would refer to the sum of the number of e-foldings from two periods of inflation. From this argument we shall take begin k _ 1.The reheating temperature can be anywhere between 1 MeV and 1016 GeV. It is more likely that it is between 1 TeV and 108 GeV for various reasons, but the allowed region is still large. ======== [quote]p.21 the detection of non-adiabatic fluctuations between matter and radiation has a profound implication for the physics of inflation and, perhaps more importantly, the origin of matter. [/quote] ========== references (for the present explanations of what happened prior decoupling) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis[/url] The next step after baryogenesis is the much better understood Big Bang nucleosynthesis, during which light atomic nuclei began to form. Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting nucleons (protons and neutrons). ------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis[/url] Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1. There are two important characteristics of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN): • It lasted for only about seventeen minutes (during the period from 3 to about 20 minutes from the beginning of space expansion); after that, the temperature and density of the universe fell below that which is required for nuclear fusion. The brevity of BBN is important because it prevented elements heavier than beryllium from forming while at the same time allowing unburned light elements, such as deuterium, to exist. • It was widespread, encompassing the entire universe. The key parameter which allows one to calculate the effects of BBN is the number of photons per baryon. This parameter corresponds to the temperature and density of the early universe and allows one to determine the conditions under which nuclear fusion occurs. Sequence of BBN Big Bang nucleosynthesis begins about one second after the Big Bang, when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to form stable protons and neutrons, after baryogenesis. ------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang[/url] The inflationary epoch Between 10-36 seconds and 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang Main article: Inflationary epoch The temperature, and therefore the time, at which cosmic inflation occurs is not known for certain. During inflation, the universe is flattened (its curvature is critical) and the universe enters a homogeneous and isotropic rapidly expanding phase in which the seeds of structure formation are laid down in the form of a primordial spectrum of nearly-scale-invariant fluctuations. Some energy from photons becomes virtual quarks and hyperons, but these particles decay quickly. One scenario suggests that prior to cosmic inflation, the universe was cold and empty, and the immense heat and energy associated with the early stages of the big bang was created through the phase change associated with the end of inflation. ---------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark-gluon_plasma[/url] ======= [b] Since they have found experimental evidence of a Quark-Gluon liquid and evidence of solid hydrogen this will change the time line prior decoupling and our understanding of the universe[/b]

A LAMBDA, dark energy, vacuum energy question

Does lambda evolve? Some people have been working on this question. [b] inserted more info 21 March, 08 April,[/b] -------- I hope that they do not limit the access before I get to read all the articles. [url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/lm37485593h5/?sortorder=asc&p_o=0[/url] Volume 40, Numbers 2-3 / February, 2008 Special issue on dark energy --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1334[/url] Collider Physics and Cosmology Authors: Jonathan L. Feng (Submitted on 8 Jan 2008) • Dark energy: What is it? Why not _ ∼ 10120? Why not _ = 0? Does it evolve? p.11 Recent observations of dark energy provide profound problems for particle physics. In quantum mechanics, an oscillator has zero-point energy 1 2¯h!. In quantum field theory, the vacuum energy receives contributions of this size from each mode, and so is expected to be __ ∼R E d3k 12¯h! ∼ E4, where E is the energy scale up to which the theory is valid. Typical expectations for _1/4_ are therefore the weak scale or higher, whereas the observed value is _1/4_ ∼ meV. This discrepancy is the cosmological constant problem. Its difficulty stems from the fact that the natural energy scale for solutions is not at high energies yet to be explored, but at low energies that one would otherwise have assumed are well-understood. ==== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3778v1[/url] Renormalization group running cosmologies - from a scale setting to holographic dark energy Authors: Branko Guberina (Submitted on 25 Jul 2007) A number of authors have developed what is called a generalized holographic dark energy[50] - a model where both the cosmological constant (CC) and G within QFT on curved space are running ======= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702087[/url] Renormalization-group running cosmologies and the generalized second law Authors: R. Horvat (Submitted on 15 Feb 2007 (v1), last revised 22 Mar 2007 (this version, v3)) We explore some thermodynamical consequences of accelerated universes driven by a running cosmological constant (CC) from the renormalization group (RG). Application of the generalized second law (GSL) of gravitational thermodynamics to a framework where the running of the CC goes at the expense of energy transfer between vacuum and matter, strongly restricts the mass spectrum of a (hypothetical) theory controlling the CC running. The GSL states that the entropy of the event horizon plus the entropy of all the stuff in the volume inside the horizon cannot decrease in time. -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404204[/url] Holography and Variable Cosmological Constant Authors: R. Horvat (Submitted on 9 Apr 2004 (v1), last revised 8 Sep 2004 (this version, v4)) To summarize, we have shown that the holographic ideas discussed in the present paper yield the behavior of the CC which is consistent with current observations. Hence, we see that our ‘generalized’ holographic relation (4), where now both __ and GN are varying, can be also made consistent with the present cosmological data and may alleviate the cosmic ‘coincidence’ problem. ====== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407295[/url] Accelerating Universe with a dynamic cosmological term Authors: Saibal Ray, Utpal Mukhopadhyay, Xin-He Meng (Submitted on 14 Jul 2004 (v1), last revised 4 Jun 2007 (this version, v2)) Connecting the free parameters of the models with the cosmic matter and vacuum energy density parameters, it is shown that the models are equivalent. ===== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606448[/url] Concerning the instantaneous mass and the extent of an expanding universe Authors: H.J. Fahr, Michael Heyl (Submitted on 19 Jun 2006 (v1), last revised 4 Dec 2006 (this version, v2)) This radius on the other hand can be shown to be nearly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the so-defined mass of the universe. ---------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606048[/url] About universes with scale-related total masses and their abolition of presently outstanding cosmological problems Authors: H.J. Fahr, M. Heyl (Submitted on 2 Jun 2006 (v1), last revised 4 Dec 2006 (this version, v2)) Cosmological consequences of a strictly valid total energy conservation for the whole universe are investigated in this paper. … one can also conclude that for some reason about 70% of the total energy permanently remains in the vacuum during the expansion of the universe - representing itself as vacuum energy - while about 30% manifest itself as matter. This ratio must be constant during the whole evolution of the universe because both, vacuum energy and matter density, follow the assumed R^−2u scaling. ------------ Cosmic vacuum energy decay and creation of cosmic matter. Hans-Jörg Fahr, Michael Heyl Argelander Institute for Astronomy, University of Bonn, 53121, Bonn, Germany, [email]hfahr@astro.uni-bonn.de[/email]. Source: Naturwissenschaften, Volume 94, Number 9, September 2007 , pp. 709-724(16) Publisher: Springer Abstract: In the more recent literature on cosmological evolutions of the universe, the cosmic vacuum energy has become a nonrenouncable ingredient. The cosmological constant Λ, first invented by Einstein, but later also rejected by him, presently experiences an astonishing revival. Interestingly enough, it acts like a constant vacuum energy density would also do. Namely, it has an accelerating action on cosmic dynamics, without which, as it appears, presently obtained cosmological data cannot be conciliated with theory. As we are going to show in this review, however, the concept of a constant vacuum energy density is unsatisfactory for very basic reasons because it would claim for a physical reality that acts upon spacetime and matter dynamics without itself being acted upon by spacetime or matter. -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0269v1[/url] Einstein universes stabilized Authors: Erhard Scholz (Submitted on 1 Oct 2007) The hypothesis that gravitational self-binding energy may be the source for the vacuum energy term of cosmology is studied in a Newtonian Ansatz. For spherical spaces the attractive force of gravitation and the negative pressure of the vacuum energy term form a self stabilizing system under very reasonable restrictions for the parameters, among them a characteristic coefficient \beta of self energy. In the Weyl geometric approach to cosmological redshift, Einstein-Weyl universes with observational restrictions of the curvature parameters are dynamically stable, if \beta is about 40 % smaller than in the exact Newton Ansatz or if the space geometry is elliptical ======= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2546[/url] Primordial Entropy Production and Lambda-driven Inflation from Quantum Einstein Gravity Authors: Alfio Bonanno, Martin Reuter (Submitted on 17 Mar 2008) “…the running cosmological constant _(k) changes by about 120 orders of magnitude between k-values of the order of the Planck mass and macroscopic scales,… …. We are thus led to suspect that, because of the decreasing cosmological constant, there is a continuous inflow of energy into the cosmological fluid contained in an expanding Universe… …. The assumption that the matter system must allow for an unhindered energy exchange with _ is essential, see refs. [25, 27]….” ----------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1317[/url] Functional Renormalization Group Equations, Asymptotic Safety, and Quantum Einstein Gravity Authors: Martin Reuter, Frank Saueressig (Submitted on 9 Aug 2007) -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3851[/url] Asymptotic Safety Authors: R. Percacci (Submitted on 24 Sep 2007) ------- [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0603022[/url] Quantum gravity and the standard model Authors: Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson, Fotini Markopoulou, Lee Smolin (Submitted on 3 Mar 2006 (v1), last revised 21 Apr 2007 (this version, v2)) ======== Don’t be fooled by the title. This is a comprehensive overview that will benefit most students and most amateurs. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361[/url] Fundamental Constants Authors: Frank Wilczek (Submitted on 31 Aug 2007) p.8 A great lesson of the standard model is that what human senses have been evolved to perceive as empty space is in fact a richly structured medium. “Empty” space contains symmetry-breaking condensates associated with electroweak superconductivity and with spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in QCD, an effervescence of virtual particles, and probably much more. Straightforward estimation suggests that empty space should weigh several orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude (no misprint here!) more than it does. It “should” be much denser than a neutron star, for example. The expected energy of empty space acts like dark energy, with negative pressure, but far more is expected than is observed. Given this discrepancy, many physicists hoped that some new principle would emerge – perhaps a consistency requirement from quantum gravity – that would constrain λ to vanish. Evidently those hopes, at least in their simplest form, have been dashed. Speculative ideas [5] aiming to explain the observed value of λ are discussed at length elsewhere in this volume, and briefly below. p.10 The cosmological term Ldark energy = −λ R d4x√g is proportional to the space-time volume. For λ > 0, it assigns low action for large space-time volumes – that is, it makes a large negative contribution to their action. p.14 It is convenient to think of the standard model of cosmology as consisting of two parts. One part of it is simply a concrete parameterization of the equation of state to insert into the framework of general relativistic models of a spatially uniform expanding Universe (Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model). The other part is a very specific hypothesis about the small primordial fluctuations from uniformity. Corresponding to the first part, one set of parameters in the standard model of cosmology specifies a few average properties of matter, taken over large spatial volumes. These are the densities of ordinary matter (i.e., of baryons), of neutrinos, of dark matter, and of dark energy. We know quite a lot about ordinary matter, of course, and we can detect it at great distances by several methods. It contributes about 5% of the total density. Concerning dark (actually, transparent) matter we know much less. It has been “seen” only indirectly, through the influence of its gravity on the motion of visible matter. We observe that dark matter exerts very little pressure, and that it contributes about 25% of the total density. Finally dark (actually, transparent) energy contributes about 70% of the total density. It has a large negative pressure. From the point of view of fundamental physics this dark energy is quite mysterious and disturbing, as mentioned previously. Given the constraint of spatial flatness, these four densities are not independent. They must add up to a critical density that depends only the strength of gravity and the rate of expansion of the universe. In the preceding inventory, cosmology has been “reduced” to some general hypotheses and just four exogenous parameters: the densities of ordinary baryonic matter, neutrinos, dark matter, and dark energy, constrained to sum up to the critical density, and the amplitude of primordial fluctuations. Since the neutrino density can be calculated in terms of standard model parameters, as we’ve discussed, really it’s down to three. p.16 2. Dark Energy The dark energy appeared earlier in another guise, as the fundamental constant λ of the (extended) standard model. From that perspective, it appeared as the intrinsic action per unit volume of space-time. There could also be a term associated with quantum fluctuations, i.e. zero-point energy density. Thus far attempts to augment or modify our theory of gravity in such a way as to make the effective smallness of λ appear natural have not led to success. p.18 The essence of the Peccei-Quinn mechanism is to promote the phase of quark mass matrix to an independent, dynamically variable field. Could additional aspects of the quark and lepton mass matrices likewise be represented as dynamical fields? In fact, this sort of set-up appears quite naturally in supersymmetric models, under the rubric “flat directions” or “moduli”. Under certain not entirely implausible conditions particles associated with these moduli fields could be accessible at future accelerators, specifically the LHC. If so, their study open a window admitting new light into the family/Higgs sector, where we need it badly. p.20 Finally: If the values of fundamental constants vary from place to place, they might also be expected to evolve in time. If different effective universes differ discretely, and are separated by large energy barriers, transitions might be very rare and catastrophic. But if there are light fields that vary continuously, their evolution might manifest itself as an apparent change in the fundamental constants. Thus for example changes in the value of a scalar field η that couples to the photon in the form L ∝ ηFμνFμν would appear as changes in the value of the fine structure constant. ======== [b]insert 21 March [/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3984[/url] Dark energy without dark energy Authors: David L. Wiltshire (Submitted on 24 Dec 2007) p. 28 If one replaces the words “dark energy” by “voids” in the standard qualitative explanation, then a probable description of the ISW effect in the FB model emerges. A true “concordance cosmology” should agree with all reliable observations, and not just a carefully selected subset. A glance at Table 2 reveals that there are many anomalies in the standard _CDM model. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503099[/url] Viable inhomogeneous model universe without dark energy from primordial inflation David L. Wiltshire (Submitted on 23 Mar 2005 (v1), last revised 11 Jul 2005 (this version, v5)) Citation of this earlier work (21) [url]http://www.citebase.org/search?type=identifier&submitted=Cited+By&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F0503099[/url] ======== [b]Coincidence on a cosmic scale does not "just" happen. Has anyone looked at and analyzed the fact that the "bubbles' are "coincidently" the same as sphere packing? What is the mechanism causing this? [/b] ===== [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0411038[/url] A Note on the Integral Formulation of Einstein's Equations Induced on a Braneworld Authors: Christine C. Dantas (Submitted on 8 Nov 2004) We argue that the role of the surface term (the sourcefree contribution) in the braneworld scenario may be quite subtler than in the 4D formulation. This may pose, for instance, an interesting issue to the cosmological constant problem. ---------- [b]Question I could not help but noticed that if instead of using the Randall-Sundrum type 2 model [14], description, could you replace it with Schwarzschild radius, event horizon, cosmic horizon to achieve the same thing. H.J. Fahr and Michael Heyl seem to have done something similar.[/b] ======== R. G. Vishwakarma, has continued publishing interesting papers. [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Vishwakarma_R/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] since publishing [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205075[/url] A Machian Model of Dark Energy Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma (Submitted on 17 May 2002 (v1), last revised 19 Aug 2002 (this version, v2)) This forces one to think whether the Mach's ideas and the cosmological constant are interrelated in some way. -------- [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211285v3[/url] Can brane cosmology with a vanishing \Lambda explain the observations? Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma (IUCAA), Parampreet Singh (IUCAA) (Submitted on 13 Nov 2002 (v1), last revised 21 Mar 2003 (this version, v3)) It should be noted however that despite its consistency with the observations, the nature of dark energy is a mystery at present. It does not seem to resemble any known form of matter tested in the laboratory. As yet, we have no direct indication that it really exists. In fact, a more natural value of the cosmological constant is zero (which could either be due to some symmetry or due to a dynamical adjustment mechanism) rather than an extremely small value but still non-zero. In this paper, we show that the present observations …. can successfully be explained without a lambda term and the universe is still decelerating. His latest [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0801.2973[/url] A Model to Explain Varying $\Lambda$, $G$ and $\sigma^2$ Simultaneously Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma (Submitted on 18 Jan 2008) ------ When I check the citations, I find other authors who have been dealing with the subjects ===== [b]The Mach's Principle and the future event horizon (the Schwarzschild horizon) and go hand in hand. The early universe, which was two dimension, can be expressed as a BRANE, a SCALAR, HOLOGRAPHIC, or HAUSDORFF DIMENSION.[/b] ======= references (for the amateurs) [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507666[/url] Generalized holographic dark energy and the IR cutoff problem Authors: B. Guberina, R. Horvat, H. Nikolic (Submitted on 28 Jul 2005 (v1), last revised 28 Nov 2005 (this version, v3)) The limit on the zero-point energy density __ in [1] represents a more stringent version of the holographic principle [4, 5]. In short, such a principle states that in the presence of quantum gravity, all of the information contained in a certain volume of space can be represented by a theory that counts degrees of freedom only on the boundary of that region. [b]While we promote the Newton constant to a scale-dependent quantity, they identify the IR cutoff with some combination of natural IR cutoffs: the Hubble distance, the particle horizon distance, the future event horizon, or even the length scale associated with the cosmological constant or with the span of life of the universe (when the lifetime of the universe is finite).[/b] [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0601598[/url] Dynamical dark energy with a constant vacuum energy density Authors: B. Guberina, R. Horvat, H. Nikolic (Submitted on 26 Jan 2006 (v1), last revised 20 Mar 2006 (this version, v2)) A symmetry principle of gravitational holography [1] serves as a window to a complete theory of quantum gravity. According to that principle, the description of a physical system shows equivalence between a theory having the gravitational field quantized and a theory defined on the boundary encompassing a system whose dimension is lower by one. We start with the fact that in an ever accelerating universe there always exists a future event horizon. Thus, analogously to the black-hole horizon, it can be attributed some thermodynamical quantities, like entropy and temperature. The GSL states that the entropy of the event horizon plus the entropy of matter and radiation in the volume within the horizon cannot decrease in time. [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0611299[/url] Nonsaturated Holographic Dark Energy Authors: B. Guberina, R. Horvat, H. Nikolic (Submitted on 9 Nov 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Jan 2007 (this version, v2)) Our final remark concerns the lower bound in Eq. (2). In the case of the standard _CDM model, the lower bound is violated by ρ_ at early times when the temperature is below the Planck temperature but well above the temperature when nucleosynthesis occurred. For other cases considered in this paper, the lower bound is violated at early times when the temperature is well above the Planck temperature, where the above formulas cannot be expected to hold. [url]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.3830[/url] On Cosmological Implications of Gravitational Trace Anomaly Authors: Neven Bilic, Branko Guberina, Raul Horvat, Hrvoje Nikolic, Hrvoje Stefancic (Submitted on 26 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2007 (this version, v3)) Unfortunately, the running scale, intuitively expected to be of the order of typical momenta of the particles in loops, cannot be fixed unambiguously. The IR dynamics of the conformal factor was also investigated in four-dimensional quantum gravity with torsion [17] and [b]a possible curvature induced phase transitions[/b] in IR quantum gravity was suggested.[18]. The Hausdorff dimension expressed in terms of the parameter Q2 [19] Thus, for positive Q2 the cosmological constant decreases, the fermion masses increase, and the boson masses remain constant with increasing cosmological scale a, when these quantities are measured in units of the Planck mass. ---------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson[/url] In particle physics, bosons are particles with an integer spin, as opposed to fermions which have half-integer spin. From a behaviour point of view, fermions are particles that obey the Fermi-Dirac statistics while bosons are particles that obey the Bose-Einstein statistics. They may be either elementary, like the photon, or composite, as mesons. All force carrier particles are bosons. They are named after Satyendra Nath Bose. In contrast to fermions, several bosons can occupy the same quantum state. Thus, bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space. While most bosons are composite particles, four bosons (the gauge bosons) are elementary particles not known to be composed of other particles. The only boson in the Standard Model that is yet to be discovered experimentally is the Higgs boson.[1] --------------- Furthermore, we assume that matter is nonrelativistic --------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_dimension[/url] an extended non-negative real number associated to any metric space Less frequently it is also called the capacity dimension or fractal dimension ========= [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9808070[/url] Fractal Geometry of Quantum Spacetime at Large Scales Authors: Ignatios Antoniadis, Pawel O. Mazur, Emil Mottola (Submitted on 12 Aug 1998) Because the fluctuations of the conformal factor are global in character the classical Einstein theory should remain largely intact at all scales intermediate between the extreme ultraviolet Planck scale and the extreme infrared horizon scale. The effective screening of the cosmological ‘constant’ at large distances suggests that it may be possible to construct a cosmological model in which the vacuum energy component runs continuously to smaller values as the universe expands. ======== It is worth while to read some of the citations (18) for Fractal Geometry of Quantum Spacetime at Large Scales. [url]http://www.citebase.org/search?type=identifier&submitted=Cited+By&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F9808070[/url] ======== As a result, you will find interesting papers by Martin Reuter [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Reuter+Martin/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] ======= example [url]http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610064[/url] Scale Dependent Metric and Minimal Length in QEG Authors: Martin Reuter, Jan-Markus Schwindt (Submitted on 5 Oct 2006) [b]Recently it has been shown [26] that in asymptotically safe theories of gravity, at sub-Planckian distances, spacetime is indeed a fractal whose spectral dimension [27] equals 2. It is quite remarkable that a similar dynamical dimensional reduction from 4 macroscopic to 2 microscopic dimensions has also been observed in Monte Carlo simulations of causal dynamical triangulations [28, 29, 30]. (See also [31].)[/b] ========

Recipes: How to make particles

How is mass made? Preons? Braids? Knots? [b]Answer: By a phase change, 2d to 3d. This would result in our observing mass of particles that move at less than the speed of light?[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3050v1[/url] Cold dark matter from "strong gravity" Authors: T. R. Mongan (Submitted on 20 Jun 2007) The idea that all four forces were the same in the early universe, so the strong force was equivalent to a “strong gravity,” is central to a simple but surprisingly realistic quantum cosmology. Because these concepts are useful in cosmology, it seems reasonable to apply them to the problem of dark matter. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3670v1[/url] Preons from holography Authors: T. R. Mongan (Submitted on 23 Jan 2008) This paper outlines a wrapped preon model based on a holographic representation of a closed vacuum-dominated universe. As an approximation, SM particles in the wrapped preon model can be identified with preon bound states in non-local dynamics based on three-preon Bethe-Salpeter equations with instantaneous three-preon interactions. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503213[/url] A topological model of composite preons Authors: Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson (Submitted on 22 Mar 2005 (v1), last revised 27 Oct 2006 (this version, v2)) We describe a simple model, based on the preon model of Shupe and Harari, in which the binding of preons is represented topologically. The preonic objects of this model require fewer assumed properties than in the Shupe/Harari model, yet more emergent quantities, such as helicity, hypercharge, and so on, are found. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603022[/url] Quantum gravity and the standard model Authors: Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson, Fotini Markopoulou, Lee Smolin (Submitted on 3 Mar 2006 (v1), last revised 21 Apr 2007 (this version, v2)) For such models, matter appears to be already included in the microscopic kinematics and dynamics. The theories we study here are related to Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and spin foam models, but differ in that the graphs which comprise the states are framed, so they are represented by the embedding of a two surface in the spatial manifold. --------- inserted 01 April [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0037[/url] Particle Identifications from Symmetries of Braided Ribbon Network Invariants Authors: Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Jonathan Hackett, Lou Kauffman, Lee Smolin (Submitted on 1 Apr 2008) ======== Instead of calling them preons you could call them braids. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3203[/url] Conserved Quantities for Interacting Four Valent Braids in Quantum Gravity Authors: Jonathan Hackett, Yidun Wan (Submitted on 21 Mar 2008) We derive conservation laws from interactions of actively-interacting braid-like excitations of embedded framed spin networks in Quantum Gravity. Additionally we demonstrate that actively-interacting braid-like excitations interact in such a way that the product of interactions involving two actively-interacting braid-like excitations produces a resulting actively-interacting form. A Pachner move in the model is allowed on a subgraph only when the interior of the dual topology of the subgraph is homeomorphic to an open trivial ball in R3. This condition ensures the stability of certain braid excitations ---------- You could also call them knots. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory[/url]

Looking into the proton

I have been looking at the following paper on Gamma-Ray Emission. I assume that this is the highest energy that has been detected and that it can “look” into the proton. Still no Higgs. -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611691[/url] Discovery of TeV Gamma-Ray Emission from the Cygnus Region of the Galaxy (Submitted on 21 Nov 2006) -------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum[/url] frequencies as high as 2.9e+27 Hz have been detected from astrophysical sources --------- [url]http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/frequency-wavelength-ex.html[/url] 2.99792458e+27 = 1e-17 cm ----------- I started my blog with the question, “What if they don’t find the Higgs?” ======== Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray seems intriging since they would be capable of “looking” into the structure of a proton. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207129[/url] Exploring the Micro-Structure of the Proton: from Form Factors to DVCS Authors: John P. Ralston, Pankaj Jain (Submitted on 10 Jul 2002) ----------------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0611050[/url] Nucleon electromagnetic form factors Authors: J. Arrington, C.D. Roberts, J.M. Zanotti (Submitted on 14 Nov 2006) ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0502003v1[/url] The Nucleon Elastic Form Factors Authors: Donal Day (Submitted on 1 Feb 2005) ---------- So I did some more searching. Maybe some readers will be interested in following up and giving us their thoughts. According to the experiment set up for Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray, we are not dealing with millions of interactions that must be separated. What is happening is that there is a high energy stable configuration encountering a lower energy stable configuration and …. The expected results are not being observed. Why???? There is a theoretical cut off length on the maximum energy (shortest length) that a particle can have. Here is some interesting information. (Still no Higgs) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin_limit[/url] [quote]The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK limit) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays from distant sources. They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of 6×1019 eV would interact with cosmic microwave background photons to produce pions. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray[/url] Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray These particles are significant because they have energy comparable to (and sometimes exceeding) the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit. These very high energy cosmic rays are however very rare and most cosmic rays possess an energy between 107 eV and 1010 eV. It was most likely a proton travelling with velocity almost equal to the speed of light (if it was a proton, its speed would have been approximately (1 − 5 × 10−24) c; after traveling one year the particle would be only 46 nanometres behind a photon that left at the same time[1]) and its observation was a shock to astrophysicists. Since the first observation, by the University of Utah's Fly's Eye Cosmic Ray Detector, at least fifteen similar events have been recorded, confirming the phenomenon.[/quote] [url]http://www.telescopearray.org/news.html[/url] The Telescope Array observes cosmic rays with energies of 1019 eV and up. [b]Enormous Detector Forces Rethink Of Highest Energy Cosmic Rays But the controversial excess of super-energetic particles from space has a simpler explanation, researchers with a far larger detector array now say: It doesn't exist.[/b] [quote]The excess also clashed with an energy limit predicted in the 1960s. If each ray is a proton, then at energies above about 40 EeV it should interact with the photons in the after-glow of the big bang, the cosmic microwave background, in a way that saps its energy to 40 EeV within a distance of 300 million light years. If AGASA was seeing rays with energies above this "GZK cutoff," then they had to originate in the cosmic neighborhood. Moreover, another group saw no excess. Whereas AGASA researchers detected 11 rays with energies greater than 100 EeV, physicists with the High-Resolution Fly's Eye (Hi-Res) detector at the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah saw only a couple. The two detectors are very different, however. When a high-energy cosmic ray strikes the atmosphere, it triggers a cascade of billions of particles called an extensive air shower. AGASA used 111 detectors spread over 100 square kilometers of ground to measure the showers. In contrast, Hi-Res used twin batteries of specialized telescopes to detect the light produced when the shower causes nitrogen molecules in the air to fluoresce. The Auger array uses both techniques. Covering 3000 square kilometers and comprising more than 1300 surface detectors and 24 fluorescence telescopes in four batteries, the almost-completed array has already collected enough data to rule out the excess. "If AGASA had been correct, then we should have seen 30 events [at or above 100 EeV], and we see two," says Alan Watson of the University of Leeds, U.K., who is the spokesperson for the Auger collaboration. The Auger data also show that very few of the most energetic rays are photons. As supermassive particles ought to decay readily into photons, that finding undermines exotic-particle musings, says Glennys Farrar, a theorist at New York University who joined the 300-member Auger collaboration in September. Meanwhile, researchers working with Hi-Res, which stopped taking data last year, say the shape of their final spectrum of cosmic ray energies definitely proves the rays are running up against the GZK cutoff. "It looks very much like what everyone has been predicting," says Pierre Sokolsky of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. "It's the classic GZK signature." Others aren't so sure. Auger's data suggests the highest energy rays comprise protons and heavier nuclei, which don't feel the GZK drag, Watson says. Instead of being slowed, the nuclei may never be accelerated to 40 EeV, he says.[/quote] ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2757v1[/url] Future plan for observation of cosmic gamma rays in the 100 TeV energy region with the Tibet air shower array : physics goal and overview (Submitted on 15 Oct 2007) ========= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0607248[/url] The Greisen Equation Explained and Improved Authors: Rainer W. Schiel, John P. Ralston (Submitted on 22 Jul 2006 (v1), last revised 16 Jan 2007 (this version, v2)) THE ELECTRO-PHOTON APPROACH The basic assumption for the electro-photon approach is to consider only one species of effective particles, which for discussion we designate the massless electro-photons. They will replace the electrons, positrons and photons in the regular shower models. --------- [b]Hummm! Are we modeling a particle and a wave as one entity?[/b] ----------- The wavelength of gamma rays can be measured with high accuracy by means of Compton scattering. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering[/url] Light must behave as if it consists of particles in order to explain the Compton scattering. Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light can behave as a stream of particles whose energy is proportional to the frequency. --------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung[/url] Strictly speaking, bremsstrahlung refers to any radiation due to the acceleration of a charged particle, which includes synchrotron radiation; however, it is frequently used (even when not speaking German) in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons stopping in matter. -------------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_length[/url] In physics, the radiation length is a characteristic of a material, related to the energy loss of high energy, electromagnetic-interacting particles with it. ========== [b]There is more than on way to skin a cat. Where is the Higgs particle located? [/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2041[/url] Cosmological Implications of a Scale Invariant Standard Model Authors: Pankaj Jain, Subhadip Mitra, Naveen K. Singh (Submitted on 14 Jan 2008) We generalize the standard model of particle physics such it displays global scale invariance. The gravitational action is also suitably modified such that it respects this symmetry. This model is interesting since the cosmological constant term is absent in the action. We find that the scale symmetry is broken by the recently introduced cosmological symmetry breaking mechanism. This simultaneously generates all the dimensionful parameters such as the Newton's gravitational constant, the particle masses and the vacuum or dark energy. We find that in its simplest version the model predicts the Higgs mass to be very small, which is ruled out experimentally. We further generalize the model such that it displays local scale invariance. In this case the Higgs particle disappears from the particle spectrum and instead we find a very massive vector boson. Hence the model gives a consistent description of particle physics phenomenology as well as fits the cosmological dark energy. ========

Holographic dark energy

[b]16 April: Inserted More info[/b] Holographic Models of the universe assume that we are in a “BLACK HOLE”. Holographic Dark Energy assumes that Dark Energy is 2d. Therefore, it is natural to ask, “Is dark energy from cosmic Hawking radiation?” ======== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1987[/url] Is dark energy from cosmic Hawking radiation? Authors: Jae-Weon Lee, Hyeong-Chan Kim, Jungjai Lee (Submitted on 13 Mar 2008) We suggest that dark energy is the Hawking radiation from a cosmic horizon. Despite of the extremely low Hawking temperature this dark energy could have the appropriate magnitude and the equation of state to explain the observed cosmological data, thank to its huge entropy proportional to the horizon area. If the horizon is an event horizon and the entropy of the radiation satisfies the holographic principle, then the radiation gives the holographic dark energy with the parameter $d\simeq 1$, as observed. Albeit simple, this model could explain many mysteries of dark energy in a consistent way. ======== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412218[/url] The Holographic dark energy reexamined Authors: Yungui Gong, Bin Wang, Yuan-Zhong Zhang (Submitted on 19 Dec 2004 (v1), last revised 22 Aug 2005 (this version, v3)) We have reexamined the holographic dark energy model by considering the spatial curvature. We have refined the model parameter and observed that the holographic dark energy model does not behave as phantom model. Comparing the holographic dark energy model to the supernova observation alone, we found that the closed universe is favored. Combining with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data, we obtained the reasonable value of the spatial curvature of our universe. Note: This paper has 39 citations at citybase and 45 citations at spires ======== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2913[/url] Origin of holographic dark energy models Authors: Yun Soo Myung, Min-Gyun Seo (Submitted on 20 Mar 2008) ======= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2930[/url] Present Acceleration of Universe, Holographic Dark Energy and Brans-Dicke Theory Authors: Bibekananda Nayak, Lambodar Prasad Singh (Submitted on 20 Mar 2008 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2008 (this version, v2)) Abstract: The present day accelerated expansion of the universe is naturally addressed within the Brans-Dicke theory just by using holographic dark energy model with inverse of Hubble scale as IR cutoff. It is also concluded that if the universe continues to expand, then one day it might be completely filled with dark energy. ======== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2228[/url] Restoring Holographic Dark Energy in Brane Cosmology Authors: E. N. Saridakis (Submitted on 13 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 17 Jan 2008 (this version, v3)) Holographic dark energy [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] is an interesting and ingenious idea of explaining the recently observed Universe acceleration [10]. Arising from the cosmological application [11] of the more fundamental holographic principle [12, 13], and despite some objections on this approach [14], holographic dark energy reveals the dynamical nature of the vacuum energy by relating it to cosmological volumes. [b]Its framework is the black hole thermodynamics [15, 16][/b] and the connection (known from AdS/CFT correspondence) of the UV cut-of of a quantum field theory, which gives rise to the vacuum energy, with the largest distance of the theory [17]. Such a connection is necessary for the applicability of quantum field theory in large distances and results form the argument that the total energy of a system (which entropy is in general proportional to its volume) should not exceed the mass of a black hole of the same size (which entropy is proportional to its area), since in this case the system would collapse to a black hole violating the second law of thermodynamics. When this approach is applied to the Universe, the resulting vacuum energy is identified as holographic dark energy. ======== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0526[/url] Is the Dynamics of Tracking Dark Energy Detectable? Authors: Bruce A. Bassett, Mike Brownstone, Antonio Cardoso, Marina Cortês, Yabebal Fantaye, Renée Hlozek, Jacques Kotze, Patrice Okouma (Submitted on 4 Sep 2007) ====== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702670[/url] Dynamical Dark Energy or Simply Cosmic Curvature? Authors: Chris Clarkson, Marina Cortes, Bruce A. Bassett (Submitted on 26 Feb 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Jul 2007 (this version, v3)) We show that the assumption of a flat universe induces critically large errors in reconstructing the dark energy equation of state at z>~0.9 even if the true cosmic curvature is very small, O(1%) or less. These results show that including curvature as a free parameter is imperative in any future analyses attempting to pin down the dynamics of dark energy, especially at moderate or high redshifts. ======== [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611695[/url] Holography and the scale-invariance of density fluctuations Authors: Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Carlo R. Contaldi (Submitted on 21 Nov 2006 (v1), last revised 11 Dec 2006 (this version, v3)) Abstract: We study a scenario for the very early universe in which there is a fast phase transition from a non-geometric, high temperature phase to a low temperature, geometric phase described by a classical solution to the Einstein equations. In spite of the absence of a classical metric, the thermodynamics of the high temperature phase may be described by making use of the holographic principle. The thermal spectrum of fluctuations in the high temperature phase manifest themselves after the phase transition as a scale invariant spectrum of fluctuations. A simple model of the phase transition confirms that the near scale invariance of the fluctuations is natural; but the model also withstands detailed comparison with the data. ====== [b]16 April: Inserted More info[/b] The people that are interested in Holography and dark energy probably know better than me on how to search for papers on Holographic dark energy. -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603057[/url] Dynamics of dark energy Authors: Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, Shinji Tsujikawa (Submitted on 8 Mar 2006 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2006 (this version, v3)) In this paper we review in detail a number of approaches that have been adopted to try and explain the remarkable observation of our accelerating Universe. 94 pages ---------- [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+EPRINT+HEP-TH/0603057[/url] cited 498 times [quote] [b]As we have mentioned, there is more that we have not dealt with, than we have. For example we have not addressed the issues related to the holographic approach [513] and other observational aspects about dark energy,…[/b][/quote] [513] (I listed only those that have links) S. Hsu and A. Zee, [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0406142[/url] ; Y. S. Myung, Phys. Lett. B 610 18 (2005) [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0501023[/url] ; H. Kim, H. W. Lee and Y. S. Myung, [url]http://hep-th/0501118[/url] ; Y. S. Myung, [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0502128[/url] ; J. Shen, B. Wang, E. Abdalla and R. K. Su, [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0412227[/url] ; B. Wang, Y. Gong, and E. Abdalla, [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0506069[/url] ; B. Wang, C.-Y. Lin and E. Abdalla, [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0509107[/url] ; H. Kim, H.W. Lee, and Y. S. Myung, [url]http://arXiv:gr-qc/0509040[/url] ; D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Lett. B 628, 206 (2005); [url]http://arXiv:hep-th/0511053[/url] ; Z. L. Yi and T. J. Zhang, [url]http://arXiv:astro-ph/0605596[/url] ; C. Balazs and I. Szapudi [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603133[/url] Z. L. Yi and T. J. Zhang, [url]http://arXiv:astro-ph/0605596[/url] . ======= I feel that Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, Shinji Tsujikawa and others have suppressed information on holographic dark energy and it has impeded my learning. Some want to achieve their agenda and their vision of how the universe is made. It is becoming an impediment to the education of others. ======== Here are more papers. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2214[/url] Thermodynamical description of the interaction between holographic dark energy and dark matter Authors: Bin Wang, Chi-Yong Lin, Diego Pavon, Elcio Abdalla (Submitted on 14 Nov 2007 (v1), last revised 15 Feb 2008 (this version, v2)) We present a thermodynamical description of the interaction between holographic dark energy and dark matter. If holographic dark energy and dark matter evolve separately, each of them remains in thermodynamic equilibrium. A small interaction between them may be viewed as a stable thermal fluctuation that brings a logarithmic correction to the equilibrium entropy. From this correction we obtain a physical expression for the interaction which is consistent with phenomenological descriptions and passes reasonably well the observational tests. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1407[/url] Some Issues Concerning Holographic Dark Energy Authors: Miao Li, Chunshan Lin, Yi Wang (Submitted on 9 Jan 2008 (v1), last revised 13 Jan 2008 (this version, v2)) Abstract: We study perturbation of holographic dark energy, and find it be stable. We make a simple and phenomenological classification of the interacting holographic dark energy. We also discussed the cosmic coincidence problem in the context of holographic dark energy. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603133[/url] Naturalness of the Vacuum Energy in Holographic Theories Authors: Csaba Balazs, Istvan Szapudi (Submitted on 17 Mar 2006) Based on the cosmic holographic conjecture of Fischler and Susskind, we point out that the average energy density of the universe is bound from above by its entropy limit. Since Friedmann's equation saturates this relation, the measured value of the cosmological energy density is completely natural in the framework of holographic thermodynamics: vacuum energy density fills the available quantum degrees of freedom allowed by the holographic bound. This is in strong contrast with traditional quantum field theories where, since no similar bound applies, the natural value of the vacuum energy is expected to be 123 orders of magnitude higher than the holographic value. [b]Based on our simple calculation, holographic thermodynamics, and consequently any future holographic quantum (gravity) theory, resolves the vacuum energy puzzle.[/b] --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3188[/url] Vacuum Energy Problem, Fundamental Length and Deformed Quantum Field Theory Authors: A. E. Shalyt-Margolin (Submitted on 19 Dec 2007) Abstract: The cosmological constant (vacuum energy) problem is analyzed within the scope of quantum theories with UV-cut-off or fundamental length. Various cases associated with the appearance of the latter are considered both using the Generalized Uncertainty Relations and the deformed density matrix,previously introduced in the author's works. The use of the deformed density matrix is examined in detail. It is demonstrated that, provided the Fischler-Susskind cosmic holographic conjecture is valid, the Vacuum Energy Density takes a value close to the experimental one. The arguments supporting the validity of this conjecture are given on the basis of the recently obtained results on Gravitational Holography. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0701199[/url] Dark energy from vacuum entanglement Jae-Weon Lee, Jungjai Lee, Hyeong-Chan Kim (Submitted on 22 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 18 Jul 2007 (this version, v6)) We suggest that vacuum entanglement energy associated with the entanglement entropy of the universe is the origin of dark energy. The observed properties of dark energy can be explained by using the nature of entanglement energy without modification of gravity or exotic matter. From the number of degrees of freedom in the standard model, we obtain the equation of state parameter $\omega^0_\Lambda\simeq -0.93$ and $d\simeq 0.95$ for the holographic dark energy, which are consistent with current observational data at the 95% confidence level. ==========

Holography and Confinement

Holography and Confinement [b]insert: 19 April, 22 April, 23 April[/b] Can holography give a better understanding of the proton? Once the math and the logic was worked out for black holes it was an easy step to apply the math to the whole universe and see if the calculations/results would agree with the observations. The results are encouraging and in line with observation and they resolve some outstanding problems. The next logical step would be to apply it to something more familiar, the proton, QCD and confinement. Is the following paper in line with the observations? ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0452[/url] Light-Front Dynamics and AdS/QCD Correspondence: Gravitational Form Factors of Composite Hadrons Authors: Stanley J. Brodsky, Guy F. de Teramond (Submitted on 3 Apr 2008) [b]Light-Front Holography[/b] is an important feature of AdS/CFT; it allows string modes _(z) in the AdS fifth dimension to be precisely mapped to the light-front wavefunctions of hadrons in physical space-time in terms of a specific light-front impact variable ζ which measures the separation of the quark and gluonic constituents within the hadron. In fact ζ is the only variable to appear in the light-front Schr¨odinger equations predicted from AdS/QCD. These equations for both meson and baryons give a good representation of the observed hadronic spectrum, especially in the case of the soft wall model. The resulting LFWFs also have excellent phenomenological features, including predictions for the electromagnetic form factors and decay constants. It is interesting to note that the form of the nonperturbative pion distribution amplitude φπ(x) obtained from integrating the qq valence LFWF ψ(x, k⊥) over k⊥, has a quite different x-behavior than the asymptotic distribution amplitude predicted from the PQCD evolution [43] of the pion distribution amplitude. The AdS prediction φπ(x) = √3fπpx(1 − x) has a broader distribution than expected from solving the Efremov-Radyushkin-Brodsky-Lepage (ERBL) evolution equation in perturbative QCD. This observation appears to be consistent with the results of the Fermilab diffractive dijet experiment [44], the moments obtained from lattice QCD [9] and pion form factor data [45]. ======== Comments ======== Holography is proving to be a powerful tool in trying to understand the universe. Q: Does this mean that black holes exist? A: We may get further evidence. Q: Does this mean that the universe is a black hole and that there is a future cosmic horizon? A: We probably will not get any evidence. Q: Does this mean that a proton, QCD is a black hole? A: No. But the Holographic approach could give a new understanding on how the universe is made. Q: Does this mean that everything is composed of 2d spots? A: Time or CERN will tell. ======== It seems that everyone wants to go down in history as the inventor of a NEW expression. By doing a search of “light-front framework”. I found a lot of papers. Yuk! … I know so little. ======= [b]Once again,[i] “If I thought of it someone else has thought of it before me.”[/i] is proving to be right.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9612244v2[/url] An Introduction to Light-Front Dynamics for Pedestrians Authors: A. Harindranath (Submitted on 4 Dec 1996 (v1), last revised 30 Jul 1998 (this version, v2)) -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0514[/url] AdS/CFT and Light-Front QCD Stanley J. Brodsky and Guy F. de T_eramond 04 Feb 2008 ========== [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/th/recentlectures.html[/url] "Introduction to AdS/QCD and Light-Front Hadron Dynamics" [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/th/lectures/teramond_1.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/th/lectures/teramond_2.pdf[/url] ------- [b]insert: 19 April[/b] [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=Light-Front+Dynamics&qid=12085417578007cr213.423nN-1720528443&byDate=1[/url] Light-Front Dynamics Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 1054 ------- Here is the paper for the presentation of Stanley J. Brodsky, Guy F. de Teramond at stanford.edu. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0514[/url] AdS/CFT and Light-Front QCD Authors: Stanley J. Brodsky, Guy F. de Teramond (Submitted on 4 Feb 2008) Two lectures presented at the International School of Subnuclear Physics, Searching for the `Totally Unexpected' in the LHC Era, Erice, Sicily, August 29 - September 7, 2007 --------- [b]insert 22 April[/b] My search for info has taken me to: [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=QGP+%28quark-gluon+plasma+%29+&qid=12089047726862cr213.423nN-1719605085&byDate=1[/url] QGP (quark-gluon plasma ) Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 3115 [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1368v1[/url] Quark-Gluon Plasma: Present and Future Authors: Tapan K. Nayak (Submitted on 8 Apr 2008) We review a sample of the experimental results from AGS to SPS and RHIC and their interpretations towards understanding of the Quark-Gluon Plasma. We discuss extrapolations of these results to the upcoming LHC experiments. Finally, we present the plans to probe the QCD critical point with an energy scan at RHIC and FAIR facilities. [b]We need to have a good guidance from the lattice calculations with regard to the location of the critical point. The exact location of the critical point is not known yet.[/b] ========= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0899v2[/url] Deconfinement and Gluon Plasma Dynamics in Improved Holographic QCD Authors: U.Gursoy, E.Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti, F.Nitti (Submitted on 7 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 8 Apr 2008 (this version, v2)) [b]Moreover, using the zero temperature potential and without adding any extra parameter, we obtain a value for the the critical temperature in very good agreement with the one computed from the lattice. A detailed derivation of the results will appear elsewhere.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0434[/url] Mimicking the QCD equation of state with a dual black hole Authors: Steven S. Gubser, Abhinav Nellore (Submitted on 3 Apr 2008) ====== [b]insert 23 April[/b] [url]http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/default.htm[/url] The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) ----------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0410020[/url] Quark Gluon Plasma an Color Glass Condensate at RHIC? The perspective from the BRAHMS experiment Authors: I. Arsene et al. BRAHMS collaboration (Submitted on 14 Oct 2004) Abstract We review the main results obtained by the BRAHMS collaboration on the properties of hot and dense hadronic and partonic matter produced in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions at RHIC. A particular focus of this paper is to discuss to what extent the results collected so far by BRAHMS, and by the other three experiments at RHIC, can be taken as evidence for the formation of a state of deconfined partonic matter, the so called quark-gluon-plasma (QGP). We also discuss evidence for a possible precursor state to the QGP, i.e. the proposed Color Glass Condensate. The predicted transition from ordinary nuclear matter, which consists of hadrons inside which quarks and gluons are confined, to the QGP, a state of matter in which quarks and gluons are no longer confined to volumes of hadronic dimensions, can in the simplest approach, be likened to the transition between two thermodynamic states in a closed volume. [b]It is now generally thought that the early universe was initially in a Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) state until its energy density had decreased sufficiently, as a result of the expansion of the universe, that it could make the transition to ordinary (confined) matter. (note: Which, of course, would be solid hydrogen)[/b] ======= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4256[/url] The Phase Diagram of Strongly-Interacting Matter Authors: P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Wambach (Submitted on 28 Jan 2008) In this article we discuss physical aspects of the phase diagram, its relation to the evolution of the early universe as well as the inner core of neutron stars. Further experimental studies at lower energy at the RHIC collider as well as with the planned CBM experiment at the FAIR facility at GSI are mandatory to make progress in our understanding of the QCD phase transition in the high density regime. ======

CERN and Fusion Power

[b]see insert at end[/b] The world is changing Let us say that the results from CERN validate an extended Standard Model. ------- example; [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1151v1[/url] The "Crisis in Fundamental Physics" - Will the LHC Pomeron End it? Authors: Alan R. White (Submitted on 7 Mar 2008) ============ Okay! So what! There is a lot more going on than finding another symbol to put into a theoretical formula. What CERN will be doing is “making” a QGP (quark-gluon plasma ) ball. Now!…. That is interesting …and promissing Examples; ======== [url]http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e04/PAPERS/FRYBCH01.pdf[/url] CLEAN ENERGY AND THE FAST TRACK TO FUSION POWER Chris Llewellyn Smith, EURATOM/UKAEA Fusion Association, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3DB, UK If ITER and IFMIF are both started now, and progress is maintained at other facilities (especially JET) during their construction, DEMO could be putting power into the grid within 30 years. More detailed work on the design of DEMO also needs to begin now, leading to a construction timetable set by the Just-in-Time availability of ITER and IFMIF results that are needed to finalise the design of certain DEMO components. [b]Bringing DEMO into operation within 30 years will be very challenging.[/b] It will require an increase in fusion funding (from the present world total of ~ $1.2 bn pa, which should be compared with the $3 trillion pa world energy market), and that there are no major surprises. When asked when fusion power would be available, the great Russian scientist Lev Artsimovich replied: ‘Fusion will be ready when society needs it’. The need is now very apparent. Let us hope that fusion power will be ready as soon as possible. ----------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion[/url] Research into controlled fusion for civilian purposes began in the 1950s, and continues to this day. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2787[/url] Validation in Fusion Research: Towards Guidelines and Best Practices Authors: P.W. Terry, M. Greenwald, J.-N. Leboeuf, G.R. McKee, D.R. Mikkelsen, W.M. Nevins, D.E. Newman, D.P. Stotler (Submitted on 17 Jan 2008) --------- [url]http://epac.web.cern.ch/EPAC/Welcome.html[/url] European Particle Accelerator Conference ----------- [url]http://epac.web.cern.ch/EPAC/Edinburgh/AbstractsBrochure.pdf[/url] 10th biennial European Particle Accelerator Conference, EPAC'06 Abstracts brochure ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3215[/url] A model for a plasma ball Authors: Yuri Kornyushin (Submitted on 17 Oct 2007) ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3976[/url] An attempt to control a manmade nuclear fusion Authors: Yuri Kornyushin (Submitted on 22 Oct 2007) ------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3552[/url] The Fluid Nature of Quark-Gluon Plasma Authors: W.A. Zajc (Submitted on 25 Feb 2008) Such a state, often referred to as a quark-gluon plasma, is thought to have been the dominant form of matter in the universe in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang. The current status of the RHIC experimental studies is presented, with a special emphasis on the fluid properties of the created matter, which may in fact be the most perfect fluid ever studied in the laboratory. ========== [b]Perhaps our problems will be solved by the work being done at temp. that are more accessible.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612097[/url] Ultracold Neutral Plasmas Authors: T. C. Killian, T. Pattard, T. Pohl, J. M. Rost (Submitted on 11 Dec 2006) Ultracold neutral plasmas, formed by photoionizing laser-cooled atoms near the ionization threshold, have electron temperatures in the 1-1000 kelvin range and ion temperatures from tens of millikelvin to a few kelvin. They represent a new frontier in the study of neutral plasmas, which traditionally deals with much hotter systems, but they also blur the boundaries of plasma, atomic, condensed matter, and low temperature physics. As emphasized in various sections of this article, one of the main motivations for studying ultracold plasmas from a plasma-physics perspective is the fact that they are strongly coupled, and one might hope to create crystalline plasmas. In the laser-cooling scenario, the much slower decrease in density should allow for much longer times during which efficient rearrangement processes may occur, a prerequisite for the build-up of long-range order. Fig. 34. Ionic intra-shell structure of the 1st, 3rd and 5th shell (from left to right). [b]As the field grows, there is great possibility to increase the connection to traditional areas of plasma physics.[/b] The role of strong-coupling and the equilibration and expansion dynamics partly resemble the behavior of laser-produced plasmas in high energy-density experiments. But as we have emphasized from the start of this review, the slower time scales, excellent diagnostics, and control over initial conditions in ultracold plasmas provide unique opportunities to make significant contributions to these other areas. --------- [url]http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/amo/rolstonwebsite/p4776_1.pdf[/url] Creation of an Ultracold Neutral Plasma T. C. Killian, S. Kulin, S. D. Bergeson,* L. A. Orozco,† C. Orzel, and S. L. Rolston National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8424 (Received 30 July 1999) VOLUME 83, NUMBER 23 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 6 DECEMBER 1999 ------- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_crystal[/url] Wigner crystals ----------- [url]http://www.answers.com/topic/crystal-structure?cat=technology[/url] A Wigner-Seitz cell is a particular kind of primitive cell which has the same symmetry as the lattice. In an unit cell each atom has an identical environment when stacked in 3 dimensional space. In a primitive cell, each atom may not have the same environment. ---------- If you are interested, you can start from: [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=QGP+%28quark-gluon+plasma+%29+&qid=12089047726862cr213.423nN-1719605085&byDate=1[/url] QGP (quark-gluon plasma ) Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 3115 ======= [b]insert[/b] Let’s go back to do a search for that strange word POMERON and see what happens. [url]http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+POMERON/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] POMERON Your query resulted in too many hits, only 1000 hits are being displayed. These are not necessarily the 1000 most recent papers. We recommend that you try a more specific search. [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=Odderon+Pomeron+&qid=12089732080672cr213.423nN-748148024&byDate=1[/url] Odderon Pomeron Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 407 -------- [url]http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0708.1306[/url] The LHC Pomeron and Unification of the Standard Model - a Bound-State S-Matrix Within a Fixed-Point Field Theory ? Authors: Alan R. White (Submitted on 9 Aug 2007) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312279[/url] Pomeron Physics and QCD Authors: Otto Nachtmann (Submitted on 19 Dec 2003) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9904280[/url] Odderon-Pomeron Interference Authors: Stanley J. Brodsky, Johan Rathsman, Carlos Merino (Submitted on 8 Apr 1999 (v1), last revised 6 Jul 1999 (this version, v2)) -------------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9808233[/url] Some Remarks on the Pomeron and the Odderon in Theory and Experiment Authors: P. V. Landshoff, O. Nachtmann (Submitted on 5 Aug 1998) --------------- Of course, the latest terminology, “color glass condensate”, which is another way of saying QGP (quark-gluon plasma ) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_glass_condensate[/url] The color glass condensate is an extreme type of matter theorized to exist in atomic nuclei travelling near the speed of light. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1736v1[/url] The Color Glass Condensate and Glasma Authors: Larry McLerran (Submitted on 10 Apr 2008) These two lectures concern the Color Glass Condensate and the Glasma. These are forms of matter which might be studied in high energy hadronic collisions. The Color Glass Condensate is high energy density gluonic matter. It constitutes the part of a hadron wavefunction important for high energy processes. The Glasma is matter produced from the collision of two high energy hadrons. Both types of matter are associated with coherent fields. The Color Glass Condensate is static and related to a hadron wavefunction where the glasma is transient and evolves quickly after a collision. I present the properties of such matter, and some aspects of what is known of their properties. ----------- [url]http://aliceinfo.cern.ch/static/HIF/Talks/Gelis0606.pdf[/url] Color Glass Condensate and forward physics at the LHC Franc¸ois Gelis CEA / DSM / SPhT ======= [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2923v1[/url] The Odderon at RHIC and LHC Authors: Basarab Nicolescu (Submitted on 19 Jul 2007) Abstract: The Odderon remains an elusive object, 33 years after its invention. The Odderon is now a fundamental object in QCD and CGC and it has to be found experimentally if QCD and CGC are right. In the present talk, we show how to find it at RHIC and LHC. The most spectacular signature of the Odderon is the predicted difference between the differential cross-sections for proton-proton and antiproton-proton at high s and moderate t. This experiment can be done by using the STAR detector at RHIC and by combining these future data with the already present UA4/2 data. The Odderon could also be found by ATLAS experiment at LHC by performing a high-precision measurement of the real part of the hadron elastic scattering amplitude at small t. ========

Pre inflation conditions Un-Official version

Pre inflation conditions Un-Official version of Big Bang 2008 Even if you do not like the “string approach”, the following papers are interesting. AND .. YES … the bounce, the holographic and future cosmic horizon are mentioned. There is a good review of other approaches. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509035[/url] The Most Probable Size of the Universe Authors: Brett McInnes (Submitted on 4 Sep 2005 (v1), last revised 11 Oct 2005 (this version, v3)) Abstract: It has recently been suggested, by Firouzjahi, Sarangi, and Tye, that string-motivated modifications of the Hartle-Hawking wave function predict that our Universe came into existence from "nothing" with a de Sitter-like spacetime geometry and a spacetime curvature similar to that of "low-scale" models of Inflation. This means, however, that the Universe was quite large at birth. It would be preferable for the initial scale to be close to the string scale, or perhaps the Planck scale. The problem with this, however, is to explain how any initial homogeneity is preserved during the pre-inflationary era, so that Inflation can indeed begin. Here we modify a suggestion due to Linde and assume that the Universe was born with the topology of a torus; however, we propose that the size of the torus is to be predicted by the FST wave function. The latter does predict an initial size for the torus at about the string scale, and it also predicts a pre-inflationary spacetime geometry such that chaotic mixing preserves any initial homogeneity until Inflation can begin at a relatively low scale. ======== More on his approach can be obtained at [url]http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/hep-th/mc/McInnes[/url] Article(s): 27 The Arrow Of Time In The Landscape [b]Comment. To appear in R. Vaas (ed.): Beyond the Big Bang. Springer: Heidelberg 2008[/b] -------- Initial Conditions for Bubble Universes -------- Arrow of Time in String Theory [b]updated, version to appear in Nuclear Physics B[/b] ------- Unitarity at Infinity and Topological Holography [b]Journal-ref. Nucl.Phys. B754 (2006) 91-106[/b] -------- The Geometry of The Entropic Principle and the Shape of the Universe [b]Journal-ref. JHEP 0610 (2006) 029[/b] --------- Pre-Inflationary Spacetime in String Cosmology [b]Journal-ref. Nucl.Phys. B748 (2006) 309-332[/b] ------- The Most Probable Size of the Universe [b]Journal-ref. Nucl.Phys. B730 (2005) 50-81[/b] ---------- ======== [b]If going down to the Planck Scale has been bothering you then this paper might help you. There are experiments underway to test the Planck scale. Is it faulsifiable? Has it been faulsified?[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2373[/url] The dark energy scale in superconductors: Innovative theoretical and experimental concepts Authors: Christian Beck, Clovis Jacinto de Matos (Submitted on 14 Sep 2007 (v1), last revised 24 Apr 2008 (this version, v2)) We propose several new experiments which may further elucidate the role of the Planck-Einstein scale in superconductors. In section 2 we sketch the inverse cosmological problem and describe how to obtain a natural scale of dark energy, the Planck-Einstein scale. ------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1797[/url] Possible Measurable Effects of Dark Energy in Rotating Superconductors Authors: Clovis Jacinto de Matos, Christian Beck (Submitted on 12 Jul 2007) In this paper we look at recent experiments that were performed with rotating superconductors. For example, if dark energy is due to the existence of compactified dimensions with a diameter of the order of the micron scale, then this would lead to modifications of the gravitational interaction potential on these scales. This can be tested in laboratory precision experiments. Tests by Adelberger et al. [5] proved negative so far down to a scale of about 50 microns. If we assume that dark energy can interact with superconducting matter only, we do not get any contradiction from cosmological observations, since almost all of the matter in the universe is not in a superconducting state. Given the above assumption of a possible interaction between dark energy and superconducting matter one can then constrain the interaction strength by making precision measurements with superconducting devices. There are three observed anomalies that cannot be explained with conventional theories. 1. The London moment in rotating superconductors. The London moment is a magnetic field generated inside a superconductor once it is set into rotation. They measured a London moment slighty too large as compared to the theoretical expectations. This anomalous London moment, well established within the experimental precision, has remained unexplained for the past 20 years. 2. The gyroscopes yield small signals proportional to the rotation frequency that again cannot be explained by conventional theories. These signals may, however, be interpreted in terms of a gravitomagnetic field whose strength is much larger than theoretically expected from ordinary gravity. 3. If the rotation frequency of the superconductor is rapidly changed. Again this induced acceleration signal is much stronger than theoretically expected from normal gravity. All three effects are specific to superconducting matter only, they vanish as soon as the temperature exceeds the critical temperature. Presently it seems that none of the above measured effects can be understood in terms of conventional superconductor physics. ----------- Other papers by this author are at [url]http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Matos_C/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url]

TOMORROWS' BIG BANG

[b]TOMORROWS' BIG BANG My quest started by a simple question, “How is the universe made and how does it works?” As you can see in my blog, many have asked this question and there are many different approaches to try to get an answer. I get my pleasure from seeking the answers. I have been trying to understand how the universe is made by looking at the recent scientific papers and the many approaches that are being used. Here is what I have learned since coming to this forum. This is based on the speculations in the scientific papers.[/b] [b]PHASE I – SCALARS[/b] Only massless 2d Scalars exist. The first fluctuations would be between 24 planck units and the GUT scale. Minimum length is maintained. [1] [u]PHASE CHANGE[/u] - The GUT scale is a phase change for the 2d massless scalars. An additional symmetry is revealed. Minimum length has increased to a minimum of the GUT scale. [b]PHASE II - SCALARS[/b] Scalars fluctuate between the GUT scale and 10^-18. [2] [u]PHASE CHANGE[/u] - 10^-18. 30% of the massless scalars are transformed to a quark-gluon liquid, CGC (Color Glass Condensate). [b]PHASE III – MIXED - UNCONFINED quark-gluon LIQUID PLASMA [3] [/b] The 30% quark-gluon liquid slowed down from the speed of light and curled up. The remaining 70% of the massless 2d scalars have grown to a minimum size of 10^-18. The massless 2d scalars, now, fluctuate between 10^-18 and 10^-15. The acquired mass of the 3d quark-gluon liquid resulted in sphere packing and established the “Future Cosmic Horizon”. [4] As the “Future Cosmic Horizon” expanded it included more massless 2d scalars to fill the void that resulted when the 2d massless scalars became a 3d quark-gluon liquid. [u]PHASE CHANGE[/u] – confinement of the 3d quark gluon liquid [b]PHASE IV – SOLID HYDROGEN [5] [/b] The expansion of the “Future Cosmic Horizon” is increasing the numbers of the 2d massless scalars. This reduces the pressure and cooled the 3d quark-gluons liquid which then undergoes confinement, they get their partners and become protons (5%) with mass. The mass of the particles start a further expansion of the “Future Cosmic Horizon”. The protons would be in a solid hydrogen phase. Further expansion causes the hydrogen solid to become liquid then a gas. [b]PHASE V - CMB is formed[/b] CMB is formed by the decoupling of electrons when the hydrogen reached a gas phase. The CMB is much smaller than the future cosmic horizon because it started later. All pre CMB phases can have duration of fluctuations which would make the universe appears to be almost flat. [b]PHASE VI – NOW – FORMATION OF GALAZIES[/b] 1. The 2d massless scalars are still present within the universe and are the source of virtual particles. 2. Spacetime is made up of a 2d simple structured massless scalars which are fluctuating between 10^-18 and 10^-15. [6] 3. The proportion of dark energy, (2d massless scalars), and baryonic matter is consistent with sphere packing. [7] ======== CITATIONS – see blog entries [1] LQG/LQC - first principles, minimum length, PART#5- INFLATON IS DEAD, BOUNCE IS BETTER THAN BANG, Pre inflation conditions Un-Official version [2] Fluctuations - BOUNCE BETTER THAN BANG -REVISITED [3] quark- gluon liquid CGC (Color Glass Condensate) - Holography and Confinement, CERN and Fusion Power [4] Future Cosmic Horizon - Can the universe fit into the CMB?, Holographic dark energy, "A LAMBDA, dark energy, vacuum energy question" [5] SOLID HYDROGEN - Warm Dense Matter (WDM) = solid hydrogen [6] Spacetime Structure – Micro Lensing Reveal the Quantum Structure of Spacetime, A LAMBDA, dark energy, vacuum energy question [7] Recipes: How to make particles ======== I have not found the answer but I’m still looking. ======= Thank You for the birthday greetings!

UNIVERSE MODEL EXPANSION (cont.)

UNIVERSE MODEL EXPANSION (cont.) Sphere Packing and Inverse Square law I have not found any studies/experiments. Maybe you can ------------ You can use a High Tech approach, paper and pencil or a Low Tech approach, a computer.:smile: 1. Find the circumference, radius. Use 12 sticky circles on an orange. Make sure that all the circles are separated by another circle of a different color to represent the minimum length separations. This will result in you having 6 white and 6 colored circles on the circumference, plus 6 on the top and 6 on the bottom. These are the shadow projections of the kissing point on the 13th inner sphere. You have established the length of the circumference (12 minimum lengths) and so you can get the radius of the sphere by using a calculator from the web. You have also established that the smallest sphere has 24 units. ----------- 2. Now, let’s do the expansion. Get some graph paper. Draw that circumference then draw another circle at 2R and 4R. These circles will represent the expanding circumferences at the inverse square law. Draw 6 lines from the center. ( 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360 degrees) These lines will be going through the center of each kissing spheres that are on the circumference. On those lines, ( 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360 degrees r, 2r, and 4r) draw the minimum length circles. [b]You will notice that there is a lot of room for more circles in between the lines.[/b] ---------- Those using a computer program will get a more accurate number because they will be able to “jiggle” the location of the spheres in 3d. What is the “jiggling” formula to get the densest packing? [b]What “jiggling” formula did the universe use as it expanded?[/b] At what step do the spheres get back to their original positions on the 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360 degrees lines? Does the expansion always increase or are there any backward steps before going to the next expansion level? ----------- For those that are really advanced, 1. Using 2d surfaces of one unit diameter, you can place those surfaces at different angles and different positions within each “cubes/spheres” as long as they do not violate minimum length. They cannot remain “locked” in that position as the sphere expands. They could come back to that position if there is “room” for them to move without violating the minimum length between the units. 2. Is the Inverse Square Law violated. 3. Can you think of an experiment to verify if the densest sphere packing does or does not violate the Inverse Square Law? 4. Can we get an accuracy to 15 decimal places? (The proton is at about 10^-15 m and the planck length is at 10^-33 m ). Search the web …. Maybe someone has already done all of this work and found all kinds of “unusual behaviors”. Let me know what you find. If you figured out that this could apply to an expanding Black Hole … give yourself a pat on the back. You could make a model with beads. From a center disc, string your beads of alternating colors or spacers at 60 degree. [b]Work on the model … you will have fun![/b] ----------- Some cool references! --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611184[/url] Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length Scale Authors: D.J. Kapner, T.S. Cook, E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, B.R. Heckel, C.D. Hoyle, H.E. Swanson (Submitted on 14 Nov 2006) -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611223[/url] Particle Physics Implications of a Recent Test of the Gravitational Inverse Square Law Authors: E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, C.D. Hoyle, D.J. Kapner, A. Upadhye (Submitted on 16 Nov 2006 (v1), last revised 7 Feb 2007 (this version, v3)) ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3898[/url] Scalar modifications to gravity from unparticle effects may be testable Authors: Haim Goldberg, Pran Nath (Submitted on 27 Jun 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Dec 2007 (this version, v3)) --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0608078[/url] Evading Equivalence Principle Violations, Cosmological and other Experimental Constraints in Scalar Field Theories with a Strong Coupling to Matter Authors: David F. Mota, Douglas J. Shaw (Submitted on 7 Aug 2006 (v1), last revised 1 Dec 2006 (this version, v3)) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3430[/url] Beyond the Chameleon Mechanism Authors: David F. Mota, Douglas J. Shaw (Submitted on 22 May 2008) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0609155[/url] Gauss-Bonnet Quintessence: Background Evolution, Large Scale Structure and Cosmological Constraints Authors: Tomi Koivisto, David F. Mota (Submitted on 22 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Nov 2006 (this version, v2)) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0303057[/url] Current Short-Range Tests of the Gravitational Inverse Square Law Authors: Joshua C. Long (Los Alamos National Laboratory), John C. Price (University of Colorado) (Submitted on 7 Mar 2003 (v1), last revised 4 Apr 2003 (this version, v2))

Universe-symmetry-mesh generation, jal

[b]I am always amazed by the depth of information that has been acquired by so many people. What I know is just scratching the surface. Dig into the links and discover for yourself.[/b] In my previous blogs, I start with the minimum number of units, 24 for a bounce, and it agrees with sphere packing in 3d. This produces the hex. or the cubic pattern. I ask, “What is the “jiggling” formula to get the densest packing?” If you played with the model then you saw that as you expand the model from R to 2R to 4R, (hypersurfaces), that there was room for other spheres in between the 60 degrees. How to make the space large enough to put a sphere into that space is the “jiggling” formula. Does the mesh generation expand evenly at every step? Does it ever crash? Is the Inverse Square Law violated at any of the steps? --------- I’ll re phrase by the following example Imagine that you are at the beach on a hot summer day. The beach is crowded. There are vacant spots but you must find one of them and go to it. You do not have all day to find and get a spot. You want to enjoy the day before the sun goes down and everyone leaves. (Inflation). [b]What is the information mechanism for finding the spot? What are the rules for getting to that spot? Speed? Distances? Time? Path?[/b] What are the possible patterns that could have been created by early arrivers to the beach or would be created by the late arrivals? ======= [b]Mathematician have a different way of “talking”. I say that the densest sphere packing is 12 spheres in a hex. pattern and then add the minimum scale, this results in having another 12 spheres for a total of 24 spheres, a Leech Lattice. Compare, the radius of a circumference of 12 units, with the radius of Leech Lattice. Does it make a difference if the circumference of the 12 units makes a smaller radius?[/b] Therefore, when I ask, “At what expansion stage does minimum length no longer apply?”, is similar to saying, “ The universe started out as a Leech Lattice but there was a phase transition. Now, we can have spheres touch each other in 3d without minimum length. The physicist and cosmologists have their own way of “talking” and they calculate that the bounce occurs at 24 units and then they do their calculation on the hypersurfaces, causal sets, after assuming that the “jiggling” was done without causing anything interesting and that all of the connections (symmetries) have been established. (mesh generation) [b] You cannot have a hypersurface without filling all the “voids”.[/b] As usual, I expect that the “jiggling” formula has already been found by the mathematicians but that it has been overlooked/unrecognized. (by me) [b]Studying the “jiggling” (mesh generation) formula should/could explain the expansion and the confinement mechanism.[/b] I’ll save a big spot, between R and 2R, for you at the beach. I’ll see you all in my next blog entry, where we will look at ways of building a universe from what we learned so far. -------- ========== [b]Math references[/b] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice[/url] Leech lattice ======== ---------------- COMPARE 1) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram[/url] Voronoi diagram --- 2) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_sets[/url] The causal sets programme is an approach to quantum gravity. --- 3) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_generation[/url] Mesh generation --- 4) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation[/url] Causal dynamical triangulation ======= ------------- [url]http://research.microsoft.com/~cohn/[/url] ------- [url]http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/search?a=Henry+Cohn&n=200&s=Abstracts[/url] ------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0408174[/url] The densest lattice in twenty-four dimensions Authors: Henry Cohn, Abhinav Kumar (Submitted on 13 Aug 2004) -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0701080[/url] The Optimal Isodual Lattice Quantizer in Three Dimensions J. H. Conway N. J. A. Sloane Jan 02 2006 The mean-centered cuboidal (or m.c.c.) lattice is known to be the optimal packing and covering among all isodual three-dimensional lattices. In this note we show that it is also the best quantizer. It thus joins the isodual lattices �� , A2 and (presumably) D4, E8 and the Leech lattice in being simultaneously optimal with respect to all three criteria. ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0637v1[/url] A Complete Classification of Ternary Self-Dual Codes of Length 24 Authors: Masaaki Harada, Akihiro Munemasa (Submitted on 4 Apr 2008) ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2205[/url] Mass formula for self-orthogonal codes over Z_{p^2} Authors: Rowena A. L. Betty, Akihiro Munemasa (Submitted on 15 May 2008) A quaternary code is said to be even if the Euclidean weight of every codeword is divisible by 8. Every quaternary even code is self-orthogonal. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0405441[/url] Local Covering Optimality of Lattices: Leech Lattice versus Root Lattice E8 Authors: Achill Schuermann, Frank Vallentin (Submitted on 23 May 2004 (v1), last revised 10 Nov 2004 (this version, v4)) ------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0036[/url] Complexity and algorithms for computing Voronoi cells of lattices Authors: Mathieu Dutour Sikiric, Achill Schuermann, Frank Vallentin (Submitted on 31 Mar 2008 (v1), last revised 16 May 2008 (this version, v2)) --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2705[/url] Three-dimensional Random Voronoi Tessellations: From Cubic Crystal Lattices to Poisson Point Processes Authors: Valerio Lucarini (Submitted on 18 May 2008) --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0506200[/url] On packing spheres into containers (about Kepler's finite sphere packing problem) Authors: Achill Schuermann (Submitted on 10 Jun 2005 (v1), last revised 9 Sep 2006 (this version, v2)) -------- [b]Cool Dynamic Sphere![/b] [url]http://www.bugman123.com/Engineering/Unstructured.m1v[/url] --- [url]http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=%22Mesh+Generation%22&qid=12120279656865cr213.423nN-1191820670&byDate=1[/url] mesh generation Displaying hits 1 to 10 of 124. -------- [url]http://www-users.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~roberts/software.html[/url] meshing programs -------- [b]A good intro to mesh generation [url]http://www.mit.edu/~persson/publications.html[/url] [url]http://www-math.mit.edu/~persson/mesh/[/url] [url]http://www-math.mit.edu/~persson/thesis/persson-thesis-color.pdf[/url] Mesh Generation for Implicit Geometries by Per-Olof Persson[/b] ---------- ======== [b]physic references[/b] Cutting edge papers [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0867v1[/url] [b]The case for an aggressive program of dark energy probes[/b] Authors: Andreas Albrecht (Submitted on 3 Oct 2007) This paper is based on my talk at the PASCOS 07 meeting at Imperial College. My slides and a video of the talk are available online[5]. This online material as well as my “Origins of Dark Energy” talk[6] and related papers[7, 8] are a good source for the technical material on which this paper is based. My goal here is to assemble some key arguments in a concise form. Readers seeking more details should refer to this other material. ------- [url]http://www.pascos07.org/programme/[/url] PASCOS-07 Conference ------------ [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1675[/url] Is the cosmological "constant" a nonlocal quantum residue of discreteness of the causal set type? Authors: Rafael D. Sorkin (Perimeter Institute and Syracuse University) (Submitted on 9 Oct 2007) To appear in the proceedings of the PASCOS-07 Conference, held July, 2007, London, England --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703099[/url] Does Locality Fail at Intermediate Length-Scales Authors: Rafael D. Sorkin (Perimeter Institute and Syracuse University) (Submitted on 20 Mar 2007) Most current version is available at (or wherever my home-page may be) [url]http://www.physics.syr.edu/~sorkin/some.papers/[/url] ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1187[/url] Black holes in loop quantum gravity: the complete space-time Authors: Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin (Submitted on 8 May 2008) Abstract: We consider the quantization of the complete extension of the Schwarzschild space-time using spherically symmetric loop quantum gravity. We find an exact solution corresponding to the semi-classical theory. The singularity is eliminated but the space-time still contains a horizon. Although the solution is known partially numerically and therefore a proper global analysis is not possible, a global structure akin to a singularity-free Reissner--Nordstr\"om space-time including a Cauchy horizon is suggested. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3169[/url] A New Perspective on Covariant Canonical Gravity Authors: Andrew Randono (Submitted on 20 May 2008) Abstract: We present a new approach to the covariant canonical formulation of Einstein-Cartan gravity that preserves the full Lorentz group as the local gauge group. The method exploits lessons learned from gravity in 2+1 dimensions regarding the relation between gravity and a general gauge theory. The dynamical variables are simply the frame field and the spin-connection pulled-back to the hypersurface, thereby eliminating the need for simplicity constraints on the momenta. A consequence of this is a degenerate (pre)symplectic form, which appears to be a necessary feature of the Einstein-Cartan formulation. A new feature unique to this approach arises when the constraint algebra is computed: the algebra is a deformation of the de Sitter, anti-de Sitter, or Poincar\'{e} algebra (depending on the value of the cosmological constant) with the deformation parameter being the conformal Weyl tensor. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3511[/url] The covariant entropy bound and loop quantum cosmology Authors: Abhay Ashtekar, Edward Wilson-Ewing (Submitted on 22 May 2008) Abstract: We examine Bousso's covariant entropy bound conjecture in the context of radiation filled, spatially flat, Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models. The bound is violated near the big bang. However, the hope has been that quantum gravity effects would intervene and protect it. Loop quantum cosmology provides a near ideal setting for investigating this issue. For, on the one hand, quantum geometry effects resolve the singularity and, on the other hand, the wave function is sharply peaked at a quantum corrected but smooth geometry which can supply the structure needed to test the bound. We find that the bound is respected. We suggest that the bound need not be an essential ingredient for a quantum gravity theory but may emerge from it under suitable circumstances. ---------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2485[/url] Planckian Birth of the Quantum de Sitter Universe Authors: J. Ambjorn, A. Gorlich, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll (Submitted on 17 Dec 2007) Abstract: We show that the quantum universe emerging from a nonperturbative, Lorentzian sum-over-geometries can be described with high accuracy by a four-dimensional de Sitter spacetime. By a scaling analysis involving Newton's constant, we establish that the linear size of the quantum universes under study is in between 17 and 28 Planck lengths. Somewhat surprisingly, the measured quantum fluctuations around the de Sitter universe in this regime are to good approximation still describable semiclassically. The numerical evidence presented comes from a regularization of quantum gravity in terms of causal dynamical triangulations. --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0252[/url] A Matrix Model for 2D Quantum Gravity defined by Causal Dynamical Triangulations Authors: J. Ambjorn, R. Loll, Y. Watabiki, W. Westra, S. Zohren (Submitted on 1 Apr 2008) ----------- [b]My questions as formulated by … [/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4585[/url] Stepping out of Homogeneity in Loop Quantum Cosmology Authors: Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto (Submitted on 29 May 2008) p. 13 It is tempting to begin speculate on the possible cosmological role of the fluctuations of the inhomogeneous degrees of freedom at (or near) the bounce. Could they play a role in structure formation? For inflation? … Again, it is tempting to begin to speculate on the possible cosmological role of this energy density. Does it play a role in structure formation? For inflation? In relation to the cosmological constant? ======= jal -------- ~~~ Because I’m learning … I reserve the right to change my mind ~~~

NO Anthropic , NOT ONE of 10^500 UNIVERSES -

NO Anthropic , NOT ONE of 10^500 UNIVERSES - JAL ------ The only possible universes are the ones that can grow from a bounce at 24 units and grow spherically R- - > 2R etc. There are a limited numbers of mathematical possibilities that can achieve this symmetry. Are there any tools to help us pick our universe from the landscape? [1] If you are serious then you should read the previous 4 blogs with their links. ( #1 TOMORROWS' BIG BANG, #2 HOW TO MAKE YOUR UNIVERSE MODEL EXPAND, #3 UNIVERSE MODEL EXPANSION (cont.), #4 Universe-symmetry patterns-mesh generation-JAL) Use a mesh generation program [2] without “a hard shell” or “dust bag”. The objective is to make a “hard shell” at every 2R. [3],[4] ------ --------- Method #1 Use one fundamental graph, the Leech Lattice. Convert the sphere packing to tetras. Identify the tetras with two colors to be able to differentiate between a “point” and a minimum length. The “points” must be separated by, at least, “one colored” minimum length. If it builds a snow flake [5] then it waits until the next tetras can get there to build to the next 2R. If it cannot happen then it is not the right symmetry to use. Every 2R is a stable configuration and a building block for the next 2R. -------- Method #2 Use the densest packing of sphere with 12 spheres in the first circumference. Calculate the number of spheres that can fit to the next circumference 4R. Keep in mind the two colors represent the minimum size and length. ---------- Method #3 I’ve just discovered [b]kagome lattice and Kitaev model. Perhaps it can be used more effectively, at the bounce, than a mesh generation program to represent the symmetry.[6] [7][/b] I found a few links to help you build a universe. Check out the web for other methods that have been used. [8] The fastest way to get an idea of “kagome lattice” and Kitaev model is to do a “search image” in google. ========= If your program makes only snowflakes then you must change the rules (phase change) to be able to get out of the snow storm. If you can build a universe, you should be able to build a DNA “ball”. ======= [1] The choice of the lattice refinement. [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0595[/url] Unique factor ordering in the continuum limit of LQC Authors: William Nelson, Mairi Sakellariadou (KCL London) (Submitted on 3 Jun 2008) Abstract: We show that the factor ordering ambiguities associated with the loop quantisation of the gravitational part of the cosmological Hamiltonian constraint, disappear at the level of Wheeler-DeWitt equation only for a particular choice of lattice refinement model, which coincides with constraints imposed from phenomenological and consistency arguments. ------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0397[/url] The Self-Organized de Sitter Universe Authors: J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll (Submitted on 2 Jun 2008) Abstract: We propose a theory of quantum gravity which formulates the quantum theory as a nonperturbative path integral, where each spacetime history appears with a weight given by the exponentiated Einstein-Hilbert action of the corresponding causal geometry. The path integral is diffeomorphism-invariant (only geometries appear) and background-independent. The theory can be investigated by computer simulations, which show that a de Sitter universe emerges on large scales. This emergence is of an entropic, self-organizing nature, with the weight of the Einstein-Hilbert action playing a minor role. Also the quantum fluctuations around this de Sitter universe can be studied quantitatively and remain small until one gets close to the Planck scale. The structures found to describe Planck-scale gravity are reminiscent of certain aspects of condensed-matter systems. ------- [b]Comment: It’s nice to read a paper by a “math kid” saying the same thing as me. He is saying that the nonperturbative path integral gives a universe of “snowflakes” but the “snowflakes” crash and grow (quantum fluctuations) but stabilized at each 2R stable configurations before making another growth cycle. Look at the graph on p. 5. The quantum fluctuations can be interpreted as not going into the previous stable R configurations. The quantum fluctuations cannot be any less than R. I still don’t understand how he will get to that spot, that I’m saving for him, between R and 2R.[/b] ----------- “Borrowing a terminology from statistical and complex systems, we are dealing with a typical case of “self-organization”, a process where a system of a large number of microscopic constituents with certain properties and mutual interactions exhibits a collective behaviour, which gives rise to a new, coherent structure on a macroscopic scale.3 What is particularly striking in our case is the recovery of a de Sitter universe, a maximally symmetric space, despite the fact that no symmetry assumptions were ever put into the path integral and we are employing a proper-time slicing [11], which na¨ıvely might have broken spacetime covariance. There clearly is much to be learned from this novel way of looking at quantum gravity!” -------- [url]http://www.pascos07.org/programme/talk.aspx?id=24[/url] Attempts to model dark energy Ed Copeland (Nottingham) 05 July 2007, 09:35 - 10:10 “Propose dynamical mechanism based on earlier approach of Abbott, that automatically relaxes the value of Λ, including contribution to vacuum density at all scales. Relaxation time grows exponentially as vac den decreases, so almost all space spends majority of time at the stage when Λ is small and positive. Key feature, because many cycles and each cycle lasts a trillion years, universe today is much older than today’s Hubble time, so Λ has had long time to reduce to the observed value today.” ------ ====== [2] [url]http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+mesh+generation/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] 1 through 25 (of 204 total) mesh generation ------- [b]Great place to start[/b] [url]http://www-math.mit.edu/~persson/mesh/[/url] Mesh Generation for Implicit Geometries Per-Olof Persson ======== [3] [url]http://cift.fuw.edu.pl/users/kostecki/zakopane08/thiemann.pdf[/url] Quantum Dynamics of LQG: A Structural Overview Thomas Thiemann ========== [4] [url]http://cift.fuw.edu.pl/users/kostecki/zakopane08/pullin.pdf[/url] Spherically symmetric loop quantum gravity: towards the complete space-time Jorge Pullin ======= [5] [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4020[/url] [b]Modeling snow crystal growth III: three-dimensional snowfakes[/b] Authors: Janko Gravner, David Griffeath (Submitted on 26 Nov 2007) Abstract: We introduce a three-dimensional, computationally feasible, mesoscopic model for snow crystal growth, based on diffusion of vapor, anisotropic attachment, and a semi-liquid boundary layer. Several case studies are presented that faithfully emulate a wide variety of physical snowflakes. ======= [6] [b]The following symmetry approach should avoid making “snow flakes”.[/b] [url]http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+kagome/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] 1 through 25 (of 333 total) kagome -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2860[/url] Geometrical approach to SU(2) navigation with Fibonacci anyons Authors: Remy Mosseri (Submitted on 18 Jan 2008) -------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3231v2[/url] Highly Frustrated Magnetic Clusters: The kagome on a sphere Authors: Ioannis Rousochatzakis, Andreas M. Laeuchli, Frederic Mila (Submitted on 20 Nov 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Apr 2008 (this version, v2)) --------- [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3471[/url] Thermodynamics of Ising spins on the Triangular Kagome Lattice: Exact analytical method and Monte Carlo simulations Authors: Yen Lee Loh, Dao-Xin Yao, Erica W. Carlson (Submitted on 23 Nov 2007 (v1), last revised 28 Apr 2008 (this version, v2)) ---------- If you have access to Phys. Rev. then you can look up some of the papers by: [url]http://www.phys.nthu.edu.tw/e_teacher/lin.html[/url] Professor Lin, Keh-Ying ====== [7] [url]http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Kitaev+model/0/1/0/all/0/1[/url] results 1 through 25 (of 64 total) for Kitaev model ---------- [b] I’m sure that, eventually, the “math kids” will be able to verify if the symmetries of the Kagome Lattice, or the Kitaev model can be applied to the structure at the “bounce”, the expansion of the universe and to spin foam.[/b] ======= [8] Quantum Condensed Matter and Quantum Gravity. I could not say it better than expressed by [url]http://pitp.physics.ubc.ca/research/condmatt.html[/url] Pacific Institute of Theoretical Physics Quantum Condensed Matter ---------- jal -------- ~~~ Since I’m learning … I reserve the right to change my mind ~~~