As Howard Georgi explained in 2007, "it makes a big difference whether we measure masses in grams or kilograms. But in a scale-invariant world, it makes no difference at all." Then he added: "An interesting result of my analysis is that such a distribution for a process that produces unparticles looks like the distribution for a fractional number (Sic! - D.C.) of massless particles. This is weird, but it follows very simply from the scale invariance of the unparticles. It is the first glimmer of an answer to the question of how unparticles begin to show up."
More from Wiki. An explanation from Tom Siegfried: "Physicists analyzing the collisions try to make sure that the energy of all the debris particles adds up to the energy going into the collision. If the debris energy doesn't add up -- that is, if some of the energy goes missing -- the logical conclusion is that something invisible has carried some energy away."
Where? That's the big question. In the framework of GR, if we try to resolve the current problems with energy conservation in GR, perhaps "something invisible" (called gravitational waves) could have been coupled to the binary star PSR 1913+16, much like H. Georgi's unparticles: the ultimate "dark stuff" which cannot be directly observed in principle, being just 'potential reality' [Ref. 1] with continuous mass spectrum (Hrvoje Nikolic; see also Tatsuru Kikuchi and Domenico Giulini, Sec. 3).
It shows up only as "charging" or "discharging" the "battery" of potential reality, as I tried to explain to my teenage daughter in August 2006. This "battery" of potential reality has to be included in the balance of energy exchange within the closed system 'physical reality & potential reality'. Otherwise the inevitable lack of energy conservation, due to the presence of evolving cosmological "constant" (R. Penrose), will produce phenomena which will look either like creatio ex nihilo or like some non-unitary loss of (positive) mass and energy (and we would feel like parapsychologists).
Perhaps in the realm of potential reality the negative matter - positive matter "nullification" (Bob Forward) is reversible (notice my favicon), in such a way that adding or subtracting positive energy density to the realm of 'physical reality' does not disturb the energy balance of 'physical reality & potential reality'.
Here is a brief list of open questions from Kingman Cheung et al., Unparticle Phenomenology -- A Mini Review, arXiv:0809.0995v2 [hep-ph]:
"How does dimensional transmutation occur that leads to the unparticle phenomena? Is unparticle stable? What is the partition function of a system of unparticle? How does one couple gauge field (cf. Holger Lyre - D.C.) to unparticle? etc."
And another question, from my prediction (January 9, 2003): Can we model the scale-invariant world with a Fibonacci sequence of unparticles, which would suggest a Fibonacci sequence of quarks?
This is the only way to protect
the ultimate "god particle" or Aristotelian First Cause -- the Unmoved
Mover -- from being exposed explicitly in the physical world. It can
show up only as "pure math", being 'the ideal monad without windows'.
Nothing can go further, not even the human mind. Which is wonderful,
because otherwise there will be a scientific proof of [John 1:1].
Thank God, this is impossible.
“The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now, if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. [This] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality and so on. And so, it’s precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether.”
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:37:06
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Subject: Quarks in Fibonacci
This "something" is what this web site is all about: potential reality. Think of it as the Holon of Arthur Koestler, which correlates a shoal of fish swinging along a coral reef. At the beginning of the quantum realm, the Holon will absorb the potential values of the "complementary" observables from Heisenberg "uncertainty" relations, interpreted here as flexibility for the trajectories of all fish sharing a 'common wave function'. At this layer, corresponding to non-relativistic QM, the Holon fixes quantum trajectories only, just like the trajectories of every fish from the shoal. At the next layer of QCD and non-Abelian gauge fields, the Holon will begin to "absorb" the mass of elementary particles, and hence we get what physicists call quarks -- totally hidden or "confined" by default. But we have left the electron out from the outset. Thus, there should exist a third layer at which the Holon will "absorb" the mass of all fermions as well. Physically, you will only get more quarks, in Fibonacci sequence.
NB: All you need is a brand new extension of the standard model, such that the next layer of eight quarks will contain the current quarks "embedded" in it, in a way resembling the structure of cognitive concepts.
Surely the "Higgs mechanism" was needed to fix the problems of the standard model. But claiming that the Higgs boson may be some "God particle" (L. Lederman), bestowing the mass of other particles, is a joke.
Besides, the issue is far more important than the story in L. Lederman's book: recall Kurt Lewin's Genidentität thesis and the puzzle of particle identity (Chris Quigg, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007) 1019-1053; cf. Sec. 6, p. 1032, 'The problem of identity'), that is, the "sameness" of the particles of the same type, which MTW considered "a central mystery of physics" (C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, p. 1215). We need a mechanism that can create and sustain 1080 identical electrons, say. Don't expect Mother Nature to produce some new law different than the one discovered by Fibonacci, just because you've build an extremely expensive toy. It was "an understandable ploy."
The non-existence of Higgs boson will indeed start a new adventure!
So far two out-of-office automated replies have been received, from Bruce Chrisman and Chris Quigg (see below). As of today, March 20th, no intelligent reply has reached me, and probably never will. If you contaminate science with money, politics, and obsessions with "the God particle", what can you expect from 'where the Web was born'?
Actually, you never know. As they recently acknowledged, "CERN has taken a big gamble on Grid technology, and is pushing the technology forward in several ways, in order to make the 2008 LHC deadline." This frank statement sounds sufficiently unclear to spark genuine optimism. Let me try.
As an offspring from the incredible expensive toy known as LHC, the so-called Grid technology might be useful to my grandchildren's networking, I suppose. Besides, if we compare LHC to "GW astronomy", one should expect with the latter to wind up with dozens of kilometers of dark air-conditioned tunnels from LIGO and the like, which may be used for wine cellars only, while the three LISA satellites will be a total space junk.
On this background, the "Grid
technology" sounds totally unclear yet really exciting! It
will be certainly terribly expensive, but ... who cares?
Subject: Bruce Chrisman Out of
Notice that the notion of 'potential reality' falls in the basket of "mystic influence from non-observable physical beables to observable ones" (Holger Lyre); only it is anything but "mystic", in my opinion. Notice also the sentence below: "one would not think that any physics flows out of the breaking of coordinate invariance!"
But if the physics in question flows out from 'the universe as ONE', the "flow" would, in the present-day GR, look like coming from some gauge-dependent stuff, and would inevitably suggest breaking of coordinate invariance (recall, for example, the cosmic equator).
NB: Again, in the present-day GR, there is no other option for "absolute structures" (Domenico Giulini) to show up in the local mode of spacetime. The only way they could enter today's GR is as some disguised "gauge-dependent" objects -- the puzzle is known since 1918, if not earlier.
More on such "dark" puzzles from Eric Linder and Daniel Eisenstein here, and on Quantum Theory & General Relativity here and here. And if you understand the nuts and bolts of GR, think deeply on the following question: what kind of reality is presented with the Christoffel symbol (Graham Nerlich)? And how do you understand Lluis Bel's conjecture that "the two connections, Christoffel’s and Weitzenböck’s, do not have to be considered as options of an alternative, but that in the contrary they have to be correlated and used jointly" (arXiv:0805.0846v2 [gr-qc])?
What if the torsion degree of freedom (cf. Mamdouh Wanas, 0809.5040v1 [gr-qc]) is "dark" as well? Can we unveil in the Riemann-Cartan geometry two opposite "torsion" degrees of freedom (cf. Kevin Brown), which could account for implosion (CDM) and explosion/expansion (DDE)? Perhaps the observable (local mode of spacetime) effect from the torsion degrees of freedom [Ref. 2] is manifested with the cosmic equator (cf. Mário Everaldo de Souza), as a residual effect from the two "dark", tug-of-war effects of gravity, CDM and DDE.
Last but not least, check out
my talk on 21 September 2008.
"How is it then possible to
instantiate a mechanism, let alone a dynamics of mass generation, in
the breaking of such a kind of symmetry?
"Spinors differ from tensors in
how the values of their elements change under coordinate
transformations. For example, the values of the components of all
tensors, regardless of order, return to their original values under a
360-degree rotation of the coordinate system in which the components
are described. By contrast, the components of spinors change sign under
a 360-degree rotation, and do not return to their original values until
the describing coordinate system has been rotated through two full
rotations = 720-degrees!"
Subject: Re: Netiquette
Subject: arXiv:0909.3468v1 [quant-ph]
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:41:16 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Chris Heunen <email@example.com>
Cc: N P Landsman <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Bas Spitters <email@example.com>,
Andreas Döring <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Edward Anderson <email@example.com>,
Smaragda Kessari <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Charis Anastopoulos <email@example.com>,
Konstantina Savvidou <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
You and your colleagues have not replied to my previous emails, so I'll be very brief.
I'm afraid you are on a wrong track, as you're trying to see the quantum world through topos "glasses"; check out an outline at
Wrong physics dressed with advanced math is really bad thing. Do you want to look like A. Connes?
Chris Heunen et al., arXiv:0909.3468v1 [quant-ph]:
"Our approach is based on a specific mathematical interpretation of Bohr’s ‘doctrine of classical concepts’ , which in its original form states, roughly speaking, that the empirical content of a quantum theory is entirely contained in its effects on classical physics. In other words, the quantum world can only be seen through classical glasses.
"In view of the obscure and wholly unmathematical way of Bohr’s writings, it is not a priori clear what this means mathematically, but we interpret this doctrine as follows: all physically relevant information contained in a noncommutative (unital) C*-algebra A (in its role of the algebra of observables of some quantum system) is contained in the family of its commutative unital C*-algebras."
Subject: Antigravitation, arXiv:0909.3456v1 [gr-qc]
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:27:31 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
To: Sabine Hossenfelder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Luca Fabbri <email@example.com>,
Ian Drummond <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
S Crothers <email@example.com>,
S Tieu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Dr. Hossenfelder,
I would like, if I may, to ask a few questions.
I read your latest paper with great interest, but couldn't understand some of your restrictive reasoning. I hope you and your colleagues could help me understand the subtleties of the stuff with negative "charge".
1. Why torsion-free-ness ? The textbook assumption that matter couples to gravity only "through" the metric (Ian Drummond, arXiv:astro-ph/0008234v2, Sec. 8) seems to imply that torsion plays no role in positive matter gravity. But torsion is not zero,
Q1: Is it conceivable that torsion degrees of freedom could be somehow unlocked?
Q1.1: Is it possible that torsion degrees of freedom may produce two "dark" and opposite, tug-of-war components in positive matter gravity,
CDM and "dark energy"?
2. You seem to fear that (arXiv:0909.3456v1 [gr-qc], p. 1) "existence of negative masses would allow for infinite production of particle pairs. Because energy conservation does not forbid production of a zero net sum out of nothing, a disastrous vacuum decay would result."
Q2: What if we forget about "black holes", and try to explain GRBs along the lines of Q1?
Regarding BH-like effects of negative matter, please see Yakov Terletsky,
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Subject: Phenomenological Quantum