| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2006 11:59:17 PM |
| Object: |
De Sitter Space Cosmology |
Yes, Kaku is a clear writer. Look at pp 549-50 A.1.27 to A.1.31
The de Sitter O(4,1) and anti-de Sitter O(3,2) groups seem to play a key
role in Lenny Susskind's theory. The relation to the Poincare group is
A.1.32, which in terms of DARK ENERGY ~ /\
[P^a,P^b] = /\M^a^b
The globally flat Poincare group is when the DARK ENERGY VANISHES
i.e. /\ -> 0.
The effective hologram screen area of this pocket universe in the
megaverse of parallel worlds and timelines is 1//\.
/\^-1/2 = radius of a 5D universe, such that /\ -> 0 is globally flat 4D
special relativity.
This is the "Wigner-Inoui contraction."
DeSitter groups are 10-parameter like the Poincare group.
Well OBVIOUSLY something like this is involved when 11D weak
supergravity contracts to 10D strong string theory - right?
What is going to infinity there is clearly the momentum of the 11th
dimension, i.e. the 10th space dimension - yes?
OK 1915 Plain Vanilla Einstein GR without torsion is from local gauging
of T4 subgroup of 10 parameter Poincare group.
OK so what we obviously want to do is to locally gauge the 10 parameter
DeSitter groups for /\ =/= 0.
Note when /\ is positive we have "dark energy".
When /\ is negative we have "dark matter".
/\ becomes a local scalar field when we do that.
Also we need to "hide" (Sidney Coleman's Erice Lecture "secret symmetry"
way of P.W. Anderson's "More is different" --> Laughlin's "emergence")
the extra 6 generators into a Calabi-Yau space.
Each pocket universe has only ~ 1/|/\|Lp^2 BITS!
/\ = 0 is an infinite number of BITS on large scale.
In fact our /\ is ~ 10^-56 cm^-2
Our BIT number is ~ 10^56 10^66 = 10^122 BITS.
If Lp^2 = 10^-66 cm^2
If extra space dimensions intervene maybe electro-weak Lp* ~ 10^-16 cm only?
Solves Hierarchy Problem, i.e. get duality past 10^-16 cm. This would be
easily seen in LHC - right? I mean
Position Uncertainty ~ h/(Momentum Uncertainty) + (10^-32 cm^2)(Momentum
Uncertainty)/h
In that case
10^56 10^32 ~ 10^88 BITS
Note if Lp* ~ 10^-12 cm ~ electron Compton wavelenght
Then we get the Eddington number of BITS 10^80.
On Apr 7, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I found the 2 books you mentioned previously. They are sitting in
front of me.
Saul-Paul you need to update lectures on this. Make it really clear to
physics and math students. If you do I will pay to have it published as
a monograph from Author House for the historical record. This is too
difficult for the general public.
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 PM, saul-paul & mary-minn sirag wrote:
Jack, you asked:
"OK, but why do we need fermion-boson supersymmetry to get
Guv = kTuv
If we really need that what happens in 2 + 1 where we have a new kind of
braid symmetry of fractional quantum statistics with a continuous
infinite family of "anyons" in between fermions and bosons. You know
it's like a homotopy map between two spaces in which all the
intermediate spaces have important physics in their own right."
I say:
We need fermion-boson supersymmetry in order to produce a theory which
deals with gravity in sub-microscopic regions (approaching the Planck
scale), where gravity is far too strong for General Relativity alone.
Yes, I have no problem with that. However, what I am asking is to start
with the sub-microtheory, state what it is as exactly and precisely as
possible and then show what parameters of the "M Theory" need to be
switched off to zero to wind up with only the plain vanilla low energy
large distance classical field theory of Einstein 1915.
I mean show the smooth seamless transition of the larger theory to the
smaller theory. Apparently the loop quantum gravity people still cannot
do this?
What about the string theorists?
Also, the string theorists have to do double duty
I. M-Theory ----> 1915 GR exactly HOW?
II. M-Theory ----> Standard model of quarks & leptons with U(1)SU(2)SU(3)
left-handed neutrinos only in weak force and electro-weak Higgs field.
Also we still have the unsolved problem really of
Quantum Physics --> Classical Physics
In the minds of some Pundits like Penrose this is still unsolved.
Now in Bohmian QM we simply let quantum potential go to zero. That's not
good enough, we need to stick in macro-quantum ODLRO - first Bohmian
superfluids & superconductors then generalize to all condensed matter
along lines of P.W. Anderson. What happens to the micro-quantum
potential landscape when it develops macro-quantum ODLRO? Micro-quantum
phases are "fragile" with signal locality and no perfect cloning a
quantum (optimum imperfect cloning with high fidelity allowed however).
Macro-quantum GOLDSTONE PHASES are RIGID with BRANE TENSIONS. They are
nonunitary and transcend micro-quantum Born "equilibrium" hence SIGNAL
NONLOCALITY - right?
Originally (1971) we needed supersymmetry to bring fermions into the
string theory of the strong force.
Sure.
The original Bosonic string theory (of Nambu and Susskind) was a model
for the Veniziano function (1968), which obeyed 6 of the 7 symmetry
rules of Chew's bootstrap theory.
OK
After 1973, with the emergence of QCD as the preferred theory of the
strong force, string theory evolved into a theory of gravity when Scherk
and Schwarz (1974) noticed that the embarrassing massless spin-2
particle required by string theory should be considered as the (quantum
theoretic) graviton.
Penrose in "Geometric Universe" cautions about difference between
"linear graviton" and "nonlinear graviton." I think Scherk and Schwarz
have the former when we need the latter. Whether Feynman's infinite sum
really works in his "Lectures on Gravitation" may be what we need?
Not until 1984, when Green and Schwarz proved that superstring theory
was anomaly free (under SO(32) or E8 x E8 symmetry), did more than a
handful of physicists pay any attention to string theory.
Correct. Lisa Randall does a nice job on this in "Warped Passages."
After the heterotic string theory of Gross, Harvey, Martinec & Rohm
(1985), there was no stopping the string theory revolution. BTW: David
Gross and John Schwarz both did their PhDs under Geoffrey Chew in 1966
at Berkeley.
Recently string theory has been imported back into the strong force
context with some success. See "A String-Theory Calculation of Viscosity
Could have Surprising Applications," Physics Today, May 2005 (pp.
23-24), and "Liquid Universe Hints at Strings," Physics World, June
2005, pp. 23-24.
10-4 I have that here.
On Braids and Topological Quantum Field theory in 2 + 1 space:
Topological quantum field theory has grown out of Ed Witten's (1989)
paper "Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial," Comm.Math.Phys,
121(3):351-399. Here Witten used quantum field theory in 2 + 1 space to
solve problems in knot theory. (For this work he won the 1990 Fields medal.)
10-4
The relationship between braids and knots (and links) is that braids
can be made into knots (or links) by uniting the ends of the braids (in
effect compactifiying the braids). One must know that for mathematicians
a knot (or link) always has its ends connected.
The braid group on n braids is a generalization of the symmetric group
Sn on n elements. Sn is the Weyl group (or Coxeter group) classified by
the An Coxeter graphs. The Artin group is a generalization of the braid
group that is classified by all the Coxeter graphs. I would claim that,
in particular, all the A-D-E Coxeter groups will come into play. (See
"Artin Group" on Wikipedia.)
BTW: Since Anyons are implicated in quantum knots (cf. Grahm P.
Collins, "Computing with Quantum Knots" Sci.Am., May 2006), I should
point out that string theory predicts the existence of anyons.
On 2D branes? How does that work exactly?
Also 2-d conformal field theory ( on the 1 + 1 space of the string
world-sheet) plays a fundamental role in string theory. It is important
to know that all 2-d conformal field theories are A-D-E classified. And
these theories can be used in the physics of condensed matter. (See
Malte Henkel, *Conformal Invariance and Critical Phenomena* Springer, 1999.)
Interesting.
These A-D-E classifications, and the many others I have mentioned
previously such as Landau-Ginsburg orbifolds (aka gravitational
instantons), feed into my claim that ultimately it is the set of A-D-E
Coxeter graphs that lies behind the miraculous successes in the
mathematics of string theory & M-theory.
OK this is important. You need to write a pedagogical paper on this for
archive.
In other words, I claim that each of the (twenty-some so far) objects
classified by the A-D-E graphs is a separate window into some vast
underlying object -- which I take to be physical reality, or more
generally reality in all its many guises.
Clearly expressed.
The definition of M-theory is still up for grabs. I suggest that
M-theory (as currently described) is a sub-theory of something that
could be called ADEX theory, where X stands for the vast structure
implied by all the A-D-E graphs.
Good idea!
This is why I call what I work on ADEX theory -- the study and
application of all the objects classified by the A-D-E Coxeter graphs.
All for now;-)
Saul-Paul
Saul-Paul you need to update lectures on this. Make it really clear to
physics and math students. If you do I will pay to have it published as
a monograph from Author House for the historical record. This is too
difficult for the general public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 6, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK, but why do we need fermion-boson supersymmetry to get
Guv = kTuv
If we really need that what happens in 2 + 1 where we have a new kind of
braid symmetry of fractional quantum statistics with a continuous
infinite family of "anyons" in between fermions and bosons. You know
it's like a homotopy map between two spaces in which all the
intermediate spaces have important physics in their own right.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
