The Dawn of Space and Time in a Selfconscious Quantum Universe
Revisitation of Library Posts
Home
The 8x8=64 Cycles of the Metamorphosis of the Human Chrysalis
Agnostic Discourses
The Key to Interdimensional Physics post 2012
V
April in Wonderland aka Alice in Mirrorland aka Cosmology 101
The Collective Human Race is the Messiah for the Universe
Quantum Immortality
Relativity of Time and UFOs
Dark Stars
The WaveParticle Electron and its Spacial Consciousness
The Solution to Schroedinger's Cat Paradox
Panentheism and the Face of God
Dreams, the Soul and the Shadow-Self and Terence McKenna
Tibetean 2012 and a Message from Hunab Ku at the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy
Some Elementary Foundations on the Physics of Black Holes
Man on the Moon - Reality or Hoax?
The Newtonian Forcelaw extension as a Quantum Interaction
Genesis and The Gospel of Thomas
The Poem of Malachi
The Secret of Humanity
Discourses on Jesus of Nazareth
The Axiomatic Incompleteness of God and the Hole in the Earth
A Scientific Definition for the 'Universal Intelligence' aka 'God'
Does the God of John Clayton Exist?
The Reconfigured postwarped Universe of 2012/2013
Isaac Newton's Dream of Alchemy and the 28BC-2013 Timeline
The Devil Delusion versus the God Delusion
First Imagine It - then Image It!
Our physical universe is a derivative of metaphysical mathematics
Positronium and Quarks
Universal Memory and the Alien Observer from Akbar-Ra
Big Bang Cosmology
If the Sun would go supernova,..., then the design of the universe would appear...
Harptherapy
Cosmological Distance Measurements
The Meaning of Life
Getting off the Fence and the Dark Crystal
Giant Jellyfish invades Earth
MOND and Newtonian Gravity
Gauge Unification Physics
The Cosmic Lattice aka the Light-Matrix of High Definition
Infinity and Eternity for the Ordering of Time Before, Now and After
Mayan Cosmology in the 21st Century
Papillon#1
Universal Gauges
Q&A by Alf Tail and Ome Head
Photons and Phonons
The Brain and Schroedinger's Cat
A Letter from Spain
The Reading of the Sealed Book
The Stan Romanek Equations
Lan Johnson's Utopia
Monatomic Superconductivity in the the Alchemy of the Stability of the Nucleus
Nobel Prizes 1998 and 2004 in elementary physics
The 'Old Zion' and the 'New Zion' and the Pentagrammons
Future Shadows in the Time of Now
Children of Babylon
The Rotational Dynamics in Haramein-Rauscher Metrics and the Monopolic Current
A Newtonian-Einstein-De Sitter Universe in Cosmological Mirror-Supersymmetry
The Newtonian-Einstein-de Sitter Universe in Cosmological Mirror-Supersymmetry
The Nature and Origin of the Dark Energy and the Cosmological Constant
Cultural Worship - Old and New
The Fractal Earth as Universal Focus
Many Worlds within the One Shadowed Quantum Universe
A Course in Miracles and Edgar Cayce!
Revisitation of Library Posts
The Transformation of Modern Science into Omni-Science
Fundamental Algorithmic Constants for the Physical Universe
The Agony of All That Is!
Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension!
Being and Existence and a 'We Becoming' of a Pearl!
The Mystery of Gravitation and the Elementary Graviton String - Quantum Gravity 101
Protoverse + Multiverse = Omniverse
Obama's Isomorphism and the Timeline 28AD-70AD-2008AD
The Return of the Boanerges!
The Shroud of Turin
The Mystery of the Sphinx in the Circle of Time and the Metamorphosis of Humanity by 2012
Fractalised String Lifeforms, Galaxies and Stars
Maria Odete aka Barbelo aka the archetypical Ovum aka aka
Radiationmass and the Mind-Body Duality
The Old White Earth and its New Black Shadow
The 'Alien' Science behind Roswell 1947!
Evolution and Cosmic DNA Design
The Basic Higgs Boson Configuration!
The LightBody and the Fifth Gauge
The Nature of the Intelligent Designer
The 13-dimensional Mayan LightMatrix
Special Information Dispensation I
Cosmic Twinship and Human Prehistory
Cosmic Twinship and Egypt
The Mayan Warpgate of 2012
Intelligent Designs in the Mayan Annals
Mayan Education upon New Earth Serpentina
Mayan Water-Science and Antigravity in Dragon-Space
The Solution for the Psychophysical Reality in M-Theory
2012 - The Year of the Dragon and Mayan HyperSpace
Tibetean 2012
The Popul Vuh in Human History
The Serpentine Electron in Space and in Time
The Little Serpent in Space and in Time
In Lake'ch - The Primal Energy
The New Earth Present
In La'kech - I Am Another Yourself!
The Popul Vuh also known as "The Book of Life"
Physical Consciousness Defined in Metric Tetrahedral Spacetimes of Entropy and Magnetic Gravita
The Illuminatia
A New View of God and Alien Physics
The Standard Superparadigm Refined - Russell and Kant and QR
Cellular Consciousness/Dr. Bruce Lipton and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake
Why every baby born is a fractal universe of the cosmic collective Consciousness
Elaine Pagels and Gnosticism
The Shroud of Turin and the Vinland Map
Scriptural Inconsistencies and the Meaning of Gnosis
The Seat of the 'Soul' and of whales and mites
The God-Particle of Von Higgs
The charge distributions of quarks within nucleons
The Origin of Mass in the Quantum Gravitational Electron
The universe is unified in its twinship and the 'Hand of God'
tba
Blank page
A Thought Experiment to revisit the Big Bang
Elementary String Cosmology and Quantum Geometry
The Question of Time in a Quantum Universe
Neutron Stars, Black Holes and Gamma Ray Bursters
The Selfaware Universe
Reformulation of the Hubble Law in General Relativity
Origins of Life in pentagonal crystal stuctures
Where did we come from?
The Crossing of the Boundary of the Void
What is physical reality?
The Scientist, the Believer and the Gnostic
Deepak Copra versus Michael Shermer on the Afterlife
Does God exist - Co-Darwinian Evolution.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall
Zero Point Energy and the Higgs Field
The Mass of the Higgs Boson and the Mass Induction of the Weakons
The Trinity
Frequency and DNA
The Secret of Mass-Transduction and Inverse Action
The LightMatrix
The "God-Particle'
The transcendental number e
A perhaps simple way to understand the relativity of time
Ex Nihilo
The E(8x8) Octonion Structure of the Universe
The Higgs Template revealed
The Higgs Boson revealed
A SciAm Mathematics puzzle with deeper significance
Message of Introduction
The Mapping of the Atomic Nucleus onto the Solar System
Why is there Something rather than Nothing?
Yaldabaoth Saklas Samael or Jehovah's blind foolishness creates Order in YaHWHeY's MATHIMATIA=95=59
The Book of the Prophets
Biophysics, Physical Consciousness and Mitogenetic Radiation
Don Quixote's Windmill
Quagecoms
A Mirror of the Orgins is Not So Far Away!?
Genesis - Where is the God of Science? - The Death of the Supernaturality Virus!
Stringed Consciousness and the Planck-Nugget
The Holographic Universe and Spacetime Creation
Library of Quantum Relativity and the Cosmogenesis I
Introduction to the Theory of Quantum Relativity
Quantum Relativity
Newton's Gravitational Constant
The Stability of the Electron and its missing mass in QED
blank page
Serpentina
Serpentina
The Book of the Dragons - Post 2012 AD Manifesto
The Fable of Little Adam and the Rooster's Egg
My Visit of Hell - Another Kind of Dantean Inferno
Judgement Day or The Leaf on the Tree
The Land of the Dead
Poetry of Omniscience
The Parable of the Sandpit & We Becoming of a Gnostic Charm
Boundary Parameters in Quantum Relativity under Modular Duality
On the Origins and Al Qaeda of Theoretical Physics
PentagonalCurtisDNA
Algorithmic Gravity

The First Stars in the Primordial Ylemic Universe 

The stability of stars is a function of the equilibrium condition, which balances the inward pull of gravity with the outward pressure of the thermodynamic energy or enthalpy of the star (H=PV+U).

The Jeans Mass MJ and the Jeans Length RJ a used to describe the stability conditions for collapsing molecular hydrogen clouds to form stars say, are well known in the scientific data base, say in formulations such as:   

  MJ=3kTR/2Gm    for a Jeans Length of:
  RJ=√{15kT/(4πρGm)}=RJ =√(kT/Gnm²).
Now the Ideal Gas (IG)-Law of basic thermodynamics states that the internal pressure P and Volume of such an ideal gas are given by
PV=nRIGT=NkT
for n moles of substance being the Number N of molecules (say) divided by Avogadro's Constant L in n=N/L .
Since the Ideal Gas Constant RIG divided by Avogadro's Constant L and defines Boltzmann's Constant k=RIG/L.
Now the statistical analysis of kinetic energy KE of particles in motion in a gas (say) gives a root-mean-square velocity (rms) and the familiar 2.KE=mv²(rms) from the distribution of individual velocities v in such a system.
It is found that PV=(2/3)N.KE as a total system described by the v(rms).
Now set the KE equal to the Gravitational PE=GMm/R for a spherical gas cloud and you get the Jeans Mass.
(3/2N).(NkT)=GMm/R with m the mass of a nucleon or Hydrogen atom and M=MJ=3kTR/2Gm  as stated.

The Jeans' Length is the critical radius of a cloud (typically a cloud of interstellar dust) where thermal energy, which causes the cloud to expand, is counteracted by gravity, which causes the cloud to collapse. It is named after the British astronomer Sir James Jeans, who first derived the quantity; where k is Boltzmann's constant, T is the temperature of the cloud, r is the radius of the cloud, μ is the mass per particle in the cloud, G is the Gravitational Constant and ρ is the cloud's mass density (i.e. the cloud's mass divided by the cloud's volume).

Now following the Big Bang, there were of course no gas clouds in the early expanding universe and the Jeans formulations are not applicable to the mass seedling Mo; in the manner of the Jeans formulations as given.


However, the universe's dynamics is in the form of the expansion parameter of GR and so the
R(n)=R max(n/(n+1)) scalefactor of Quantum Relativity.

So we can certainly analyse this expansion in the form of the Jeans Radius of the first protostars, which so obey the equilibrium conditions and equations of state of the much later gas clouds, for which the Jeans formulations then apply on a say molecular level.

This analysis so defines the ylemic neutron stars as protostars and the first stars in the cosmogenesis and the universe.

Let the thermal internal energy or ITE=H be the outward pressure in equilibrium with the gravitational potential energy of GPE=Ω.
The Nuclear Density in terms of the superbrane parameter is ρcritical =mcritical /Vcritical  with  mc the base nucleonic or ylemic neutronmass.
Vcritical =(4π/3)Re 3  as the volume of the ylemic neutron as given by the classical electron radius for superbrane quantisation/magnification Re=1010w /360=e*/2c2.
H=(molarity)kT for molar volume in N=(R/Re)3 for dH=3kTR2/Re3.

Ω(R)= -∫GMdm/R = -{3Gmc²/(Re3)²}∫R4.dR= -3Gmc².R5/Re6  for

dm/dR=d(ρV)/dR=4πρ.R² and for ρ=3mc/4πRe³.

So  dΩ(R)=-3Gmc2R4/(Re5)2=-16π²ρ²G.R4/3.

For equilibrium, the condition is that dH=dΩ as the minimum condition dH+dΩ=0. This gives:  dH+dΩ=3kTR2/Re5-16Gπ2ρ2R4/3=0 and the ylemic radius as:
Rylem
(kT.Re³/Gomc²). as the Jeans Length precursor and progenitor.
The ylemic Jeans-Radii are all independent of the mass of the protostar as a function of its nuclear generated temperature. Applied to the protostars of the neutronic ylem matter, those radii are all neutron critical with respect to gravitational collapse, due to electron degeneracy as defined in the Chandrasekhar white dwarf limit of 1.5 solar masses.
This spans from the 'First three minutes'-scenario of the (Weinberg cosmogenesis) to 1.1 million seconds or about 13 days and encompasses the ordinary beta-minus decay of the common neutron - underpinning radiaoactivity of the elements.
The upper limit defines a trillion degree temperature and a radius of over 40 km:  the typical Schwarzschild solution gives a typical ylem radius of so 7.4 km and the lower limit specifies the 'mysterious' planetesimal limit of 1.8 km.
 For long a cosmological conundrum, it could not be modelled just how the molecular and electromagnetic forces applicable to conglomerate matter particles (say hydrogen gas as dust) on the quantum scale of molecules could become strong enough to form say mass agglomerations so 1 km across and required for ordinary gravity to assume interactive control.
The ylemic lower limit so indicates that it is indeed an ylemic temperature of then 1.2 Billion Kelvin, which is responsible under the auspices of the Ylem-Jeans formulation; which subsequently becomes applicable to the normal collapse of hydrogenic atoms in summation and the evolutionary scenarios of stars.

The stellar evolution from the ylemic(dineutronic) templates is well established in QR and confirms most of the Standard Model's ideas of nucleosynthesis and the general Temperature cosmology. The standard model is correct in the temperature assignment, but is amiss in the corresponding 'size-scales' for the cosmic expansion.

The Big Bang cosmogenesis describes the universe as a Planck-Black Body Radiator, which sets the Cosmic-Microwave-Black Body Background Radiation Spectrum (CMBBR) as a function of n as T4=18.2(n+1)²/n³ and derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law and the related statistical frequency distributions.

We have the GR metric for Schwarzschild-Black Hole Evolution as RS=2GM/c² as a function of the star's Black Hole's mass M and we have the ylemic Radius as a function of temperature only as Rylem=(kT.Re³/Gomc²).

The nucleonic mass-seed mc=Planck-Mass(mP).Alpha9 and Gomc² is constant in the partitioned n-evolution of mc(n)=Yn.mc and G(n)=Go.Xn.

Identifying the ylemic Radius with the Schwarzschild Radius then indicates a specific mass a specific temperature and a specific radius.

Those we call the Chandrasekhar Parameters:

MChandra=1.5 solar Masses=3x1030 kg and RChandra=2GoMChandra/c² or 7407.40704..metres, which is the typical neutron star radius inferred today.

TChandra=RChandra 2.Gomc2/kRe3 =1.985x1010 K for Electron Radius Re and Boltzmann's Constant k.

Those Chandrasekhar parameters then define a typical neutron star with a uniform temperature of 20 billion K at the white dwarf limit of ordinary stellar nucleosynthetic evolution (Hertzsprung-Russell or HR-diagram).

The Radius for the massparametric Universe is given in R(n)=Rmax(1-n/(n+1)) correlating the ylemic temperatures as the 'uniform' CMBBR-background and we can follow the evolution of the ylemic radius via the approximation:

Rylem=0.05258..T=(0.0753).[(n+1)2/n3](1/8)

Rylem(npresent=1.1324..)=0.0868 m* for a Tylem(npresent)=2.73 K for the present time
 tpresent=npresent/Ho.


What is nChandra?

This would describe the size of the universe as the uniform temperature CMBBR today manifesting as the largest stars, mapped however onto the ylemic neutron star evolution as the protostars
(say as nChandra'), defined not in manifested mass (say neutron conglomerations), but as a quark-strange plasma, (defined in QR as the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE).

R(nChandra')=Rmax(nChandra' /(nChandra'+1))=7407.40741.. for nChandra'=4.64x10-23 and so a time of tChandra'=n Chandra'/Ho=nChandra'/1.88x10-18=2.47x10-5 seconds.

QR defines the Weyl-Temperature limit for Bosonic Unification as 1.9 nanoseconds at a temperature of 1.4x1020 Kelvin and the weak-electromagnetic unification at 1/365 seconds at T=3.4x1015 K.

So we place the first ylemic protostar after the bosonic unification (before which the plenum was defined as undifferentiated 'bosonic plasma'), but before the electro-weak unification, which defined the Higgs-Bosonic restmass induction via the weak interaction vector-bosons and allowing the dineutrons to be born.


The universe was so 15 km across, when its ylemic 'concentrated' VPE-Temperature was so 20 Billion K and we find the CMBBR in the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law as T4=18.20(n+1)2
/n3  =1.16x1017 Kelvin. So the thermodynamic temperature for the expanding universe was so 5.85 Million times greater than the ylemic VPE-Temperature; and implying that no individual ylem stars could yet form from the mass seedling Mo. The universe's expansion however cooled the CMBBR background and we to calculate the scale of the universe corresponding to this ylemic scenario; we simply calculate the 'size' for the universe at TChandra=20 Billion K for TChandra4 and we then find nChandra=4.89x10-14 and so for
tChandra=26,065 seconds or so 7.24 hours.

The Radius R(nChandra)=7.81x1012 metres or 7.24 lighthours.

This is about 52 Astronomical Units and an indicator for the largest possible star in terms of radial extent  and the 'size' of a typical solar system, encompassed by supergiants on the HR-diagram.

We so know that the ylemic temperature decreases in direct proportion to the square of the ylemic radius  and one hitherto enigmatic aspect in cosmology relates to this in the planetesimal limit. Briefly, a temperature of so 1.2 billion degrees defines an ylemic radius of 1.8 km as the dineutronic limit for proto-neutron stars contracting from so 80 km down to this size just 1.1 million seconds or so 13 days after the Big Bang.

This then 'explains' why chunks of matter can conglomerate via molecular and other adhesive interactions towards this size, where then the accepted gravity is strong enough to build planets and moons. It works, because the ylemic template is defined in subatomic parameters reflecting the mesonic-inner and leptonic outer ring boundaries, the planetesimal limit being the leptonic mapping. So  neutrino- and quark blueprints micromacro dance their basic definition as the holographic projections of the spacetime quanta.

Now because the Electron Radius is directly proportional to the linearised wormhole perimeter and then the Compton Radius via Alpha in   Re=1010 λW/360=e*/2c2=Alpha.RC , the characteristic Chandrasekhar White Dwarf Limit should be doubled to reflect the protonic diameter mirrored in the classical electron radius.

Hence any star experiencing electron degeneracy is actually becoming YLEMIC or DINEUTRONIC, the boundary for this process being the Chandrasekhar mass. This represents the subatomic mapping of the first Bohr orbit collapsing onto the leptonic outer ring in the quarkian wave-geometry.

But this represents the Electron Radius as a Protonic Diameter and the Protonic Radius must then indicate the limit for the scale where proton degeneracy would have to enter the scenario. As the proton cannot degenerate in that way, the neutron star must enter Black Hole phasetransition at the
 Re/2 scale, corresponding to a mass of 8MChandra=24x1030 kg* or 12 solar masses.

The maximum ylemic radius so is found from the constant density proportion ρ=M/V:

(Rylemmax/Re)³=MChandra/mc for Rylemmax=40.1635 km.

The corresponding ylemic temperature is 583.5 Billion K for a CMBBR-time of  287 seconds or so 4.8 minutes from a n=5.4x10^-16, when the universe had a diameter of  so 173 Million km.

But for a maximum nuclear compressibility for the protonic radius, we find:

(Rylemmax/Re)³=8MChandra/mc for Rylemmax=80.327 km, a ylemic temperature of  2,334 Billion K for a n-cycletime of 8.5x10-17 and  a CMBBR-time of  so 45 seconds and when the universe had a radius of 13.6 Million km or was so 27 Million km across.

The first ylemic protostar vortex was at that time manifested as the ancestor for all neutron star generations to follow. This vortex is described in a cosmic string encircling a spherical region so 160 km across and within a greater universe of diameter 27 Million km which carried a thermodynamic temperature of  so 2.33 Trillion Kelvin at that point in the cosmogenesis.

This vortex manifested as a VPE concentration after the expanding universe had cooled to allow the universe to become transparent from its hitherto defining state of opaqueness and a time known as the decoupling of matter (in the form of the Mo seedling partitioned in mc's) from the radiation pressure of the CMBBR photons.

The temperature for the decoupling is found in the galactic scale-limit modular dual to the wormhole geodesic as λW=1022 metres or so 1.06 Million ly and its luminosity attenuation in the 1/e proportionality for then 388,879 lightyears as a decoupling time ndc. A maximum galactic halo limit is modulated in 2πλW metres in the linearisation of the Planck-length encountered before in an earlier discussion.

R(ndc)=Rmax(ndc/(ndc+1))=1022 metres for ndc=6.26x10-5 and so for a CMBBR-Temperature of about T=2935 K for a galactic protocore then attenuated in so 37% for ndcmin=1.0x10-6 for R=λW/2π and
 ndcmax=3.9x10-4 for R=2
πλW and for temperatures of so 65,316 K and 744 K respectively, and descriptive of the temperature modulations between the galactic cores and the galactic halos.

So a CMBBR-temperature of so 65,316 K at a time of so 532 Billion seconds or 17,000 years defined the initialisation of the VPE and the birth of the first ylemic protostars as a decoupling minimum. The ylemic mass currents were purely monopolic and known as superconductive cosmic strings, consisting of nucleonic neutrons, each of mass mc.

If we assign this timeframe to the maximised ylemic radius and assign our planetesimal limit of fusion temperature 1.2 Billion K as a corresponding minimum; then this planetesimal limit representing the onset of stellar fusion in a characteristic temperature, should indicate the first protostars at a temperature of the CMBBR of about 744 Kelvin.

The universe had a tremperature of 744 K for ndcmax=3.9x10-4 for R=2πλW and this brings us to a curvature radius of so 6.6 Million lightyears and an 'ignition-time' for the first physical ylemic neutron stars as first generation protostars of so 7 Million years after the Big Bang.


The important cosmological consideration is that of distance-scale modulation.

The Black Hole Schwarzschild metric is the inverse of the galactic scale metric.

The linearisation of the Planck-String as the Weyl-Geodesic and so the wormhole radius in the curvature radius R(n) is modular dual and mirrored in inversion in the manifestation of galactic structure with a nonluminous halo a luminous attenuated diameter-bulge and a superluminous (quasar or White Hole Core).

The core-bulge ratio will so reflect the eigenenergy quantum of the wormhole as heterotic Planck-Boson-String or as the magnetocharge as 1/500, being the mapping of the Planck-Length-Bounce as e=lP.c²√Alpha onto the electron radius in e*=2Re.c².


From Tony B. www.tonyb.freeyellow.com


 
 
 

 Neutrino Masses and the Higgs-Boson-Induction

1. Hypersphere volumes

Consider the universe's thermodynamic expansion to proceed at an initializing time to from a single spacetime quantum wirth a quantized toroidal volume 2π2rW3 and where rW  is the characteristic wormhole radius for this basic building unit for a quantized universe (say in string parameters given in the Planck scale and its transformations).

At a time tG, say so 18.85 minutes later, the count of spacetime quanta can be said to be  9.677x10102 for a universal 'total hypersphere radius' of about rG=3.39x1011 m and for a G-Hypersphere volume of so 7.69x1035 cubicmetres.

{This radius is about 2.3 Astronomical Units (AU's) and about the distance of the Asteroid Belt from the syar Sol in a typical (our) solar system.}

19 seconds later; a F-Hypersphere radius is about rF=3.45x1011 m for a F-count of so 1.02x10103 spacetime quanta.

We also define an E-Hypersphere radius at rE=3.44x1014 m and an E-count of so 10112 to circumscribe this 'solar system' in so 230 AU.

We so have 4 hypersphere volumes, based on the singularity-unit and magnified via spacetime quantization in the hyperspheres defined in counters G, F and E. We consider these counters as somehow fundamental to the universe's expansion, serving as boundary conditions in some manner. As counters, those googolplex-numbers can be said to be defined algorithmically and independent on mensuration physics of any kind.

2. The mapping of the atomic nucleus onto the thermodynamic universe of the hyperspheres

Should we consider the universe to follow some kind of architectural blueprint; then we might attempt to use our counters to be isomorphic (same form or shape) in a one-to-one mapping between the macrocosmos and the microcosmos.

So we define a quantum geometry for the nucleus in the simplest atom, say Hydrogen.

The hydrogenic nucleus is a single proton of quark-structure udu and which we assign a quantum geometric template of Kernel-InnerRing-OuterRing  (K-IR-OR), say in a simple model of concentricity.

We set the up-quarks (u) to become the 'smeared out core' in say a tripartition uuu so allowing a substructure for the down-quark (d) to be u+InnerRing. A down-quark so is a unitary ring coupled to a kernel-quark.

The proton's quark-content so can be rewritten and without loss of any of the properties associated with the quantum conservation laws; as proton → udu → uuu+IR=KKK+IR.

We may now label the InnerRing as Mesonic and the OuterRing as Leptonic.

The OuterRing is so definitive for the strange quark in quantum geometric terms: s=uuu+OR.

A neutron's quark content so becomes neutron=dud=KIR.K.KIR with a 'hyperon resonance' in the lambda=sud=KOR.K.KIR and so allowing the neutron's beta decay to proceed in disassociation from a nucleus (where protons and neutrons bind in meson exchange); i.e. in the form of 'free neutrons'. The neutron decays in the oscillation potential between the mesonic inner ring and the leptonic outer ring as the 'ground-energy' eigenstate.

There actually exist three uds-quark states which decay differently via strong, electromagnetic and weak decay rates in the uds (Sigmao* Resonance); usd (Sigmao) and the sud (Lambda) in decreasing stability. This quantum geometry then indicates the behaviour of the triple-uds decay from first principles, whereas the contemporary standard model does not, considering the u-d-s quark eigenstatess to be quantum geometrically undifferentiated.

The nuclear interactions, both strong and weak are confined in a 'Magnetic Asymptotic Confinement Limit' coinciding with the Classical Electron radius Re=ke²/mec² and in a scale of so 3 Fermi or 2.8x10-15 metres.

At a distance further away from this scale, the nuclear interaction strength vanishes rapidly.

The wavenature of the nucleus is given in the Compton-Radius RC=h/2πmc with m the mass of the nucleus, say a proton; the latter so having RC=2x10-16 metres or so 0.2 fermi.

The wave-matter (after de Broglie generalising wavespeed vdB  from c in RC) then relates the classical electron radius as the 'confinement limit' to the Compton scale in the electromagnetic finestructure constant in Re=Alpha.RC.

The extension to the Hydrogen-Atom is obtained in the expression Re=Alpha².RBohr1  for the first Bohr-Radius as the 'ground-energy' of so 13.7 eV at a scale of so 10-11 to 10-10 metres (Angstroems).

These 'facts of measurements' of the standard models now allow our quantum geometric correspondences to assume cosmological significance in their isomorphic mapping.

We denote the OuterRing as the classical electron radius and introduce the InnerRing as a mesonic scale contained within the geometry of the proton and all other elementary baryonic- and hadronic particles.

Firstly, we define a mean macro-mesonic radius as: rM=½(rF+rG)~ 3.42x10^11 m and set the macro-leptonic radius to rE=3.44x1014 m.

Secondly, we map the macroscale onto the microscale, say in the simple proportionality relation, using (de)capitalised symbols:  Re/Rm=rE/rM.

We can so solve for the micro-mesonic scale Rm=Re.rM/rE ~ 2.8x10-18 metres. So reducing the apparent measured 'size' of a proton in a factor about about 1000 gives the scale of the subnuclear mesonic interaction, say the strong interaction coupling by pions.

3. Neutrino-Masses and the sterile Higgs-Neutrinos

The (anti)neutrinos are part of the electronmass in a decoupling process between the kernel and the rings.

We may define the kernel-scale as that of the singular spacetime-quantum unit itself, namely as wormhole radius rW=10-22/2π metres.

Before the decoupling between kernel and rings, the kernel-energy can be said to be strongweakly coupled or unified and encompass the gauge-gluon of the strong interaction and the gauge-weakon of the weak interaction defined in a coupling between the OuterRing and the Kernel and bypassing the mesonic InnerRing.

So for matter, a W-Minus (weakon) must consist of a coupled lepton part, yet linking to the strong interaction via the kernel part. If now the colour-charge of the gluon transmutes into a 'neutrino-colour-charge'; then this decoupling will not only define the mechanics of the strongweak nuclear unification coupling; but also the energy transformation of the gauge-colour charge into the gauge-lepton charge.

So generally, we may state, that the gluon is unfied with a weakon before decoupling; this decoupling 'materialising' energy in the form of mass, namely the mass of the measured 'weak-interaction-bosons' of the standard model (W - for charged matter; W+ for charged antimatter and Zo for neutral mass-currents say).

Experiment shows, that a W - decays into spin-aligned electron-antineutrino or muon-antineutrino or tauon-antineutrino pairings undert the conservation laws for momentum and energy.

So, using our quantum geometry, we realise, that the weakly decoupled electron must represent the Outer-Ring, and just as shown in the analyses of QED (Quantum-Electro-Dynamics). Then it can be inferred, that the Electron's Antineutrino represents a transformed and materialised gluon via its colourcharge, now decoupled from the kernel.

Then the OuterRing contracts (say along its magnetoaxis defining its asymptotic confinement); in effect 'shrinking the electron' in its inertial and charge- properties to its experimentally measured 'point-particle-size'.
Here we define this process as a mapping between the Electronic wavelength 2πRe  and the wormhole perimeter λW=2πrW.

But in this process of the 'shrinking' classical electron radius towards the gluonic kernel (say); the mesonic ring will be encountered and it is there, that any mass-inductions should occur to differentiate a massless lepton gauge-eigenstate from that manifested by the weakon precursors.

{Note: Here the W - inducing a lefthanded neutron to decay weakly into a lefthanded proton, a lefthanded electron and a righthanded antineutrino. Only lefthanded particles decay weakly in CP-parity-symmetry violation, effected by neutrino-gauge definitions from first principles}.

This so defines a neutrino-oscillation potential at the InnerRing-Boundary.

Using out proportions and assigning any neutrino-masses mυ  as part of the electronmass me, gives the following proportionality.

mν =meW.rE/(2πrMRe) ~ 5.4x10-36 kg or 3.0 eV.

So we have derived, from first principles, a (anti)neutrinomass eigenstate of 3 eV.

The hypersphere intersection of the G- and F-count of the thermodynamic expansion of the mass-parametric universe so induces a neutrino-mass of 3 eV at the 2.8x10-18 metre marker.

The more precise G-F differential in terms of eigenenergy is 0.052 eV as the mass-eigenvalue of the Higgs-(Anti)neutrino (which is scalar of 0-spin and constituent of the so called Higgs Boson as the kernel-Eigenstate). This has been experimentally verified in the Super-Kamiokande (Japan) neutrino experiments publisized in 1998 and in subsequent neutrino experiments around the globe.

This Higgs-Neutrino-Induction is 'twinned' meaning that this energy can be related to the energy of so termed 'slow- or thermal  neutrons' in a coupled energy of so twice 0.0253 eV for a thermal equilibrium at so 20° Celsius and a rms-standard-speed of so 2200 m/s from the Maxwell statistical distributions for the kinematics.

4. Neutrinomasses

The Electron-(Anti)Neutrino is massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate.

The Muon-(Anti)Neutrino is also massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate.

The Tauon-(Anti)Neutrino is not massless with inertial eigenstate meaned at 3.0 eV.

The weakon kernel-eigenstates are 'squared' or doubled (2x2=2+2) in comparison with the gluonic-eigenstate (one can denote the colourcharges as (R²G²B²)[½] and as (RGB)[1] respectively say and with the [] bracket denoting gauge-spin and RGB meaning colours Red-Green-Blue).

The scalar Higgs-(Anti)Neutrino becomes then defined in: (R4G4B4)[0].  

The twinned neutrino state so becomes MANIFESTED in a coupling of the scalar Higgs-Neutrino with a massless base neutrino in a (R6G6B6)[0+½]) mass-induction template.

The Higgs-Neutrino is bosonic and not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle; but quantised in the form of the FG-differential of the 0.052 Higgs-restmass-Induction.

Subsequently all experimentally observed neutrino-oscillations should show a stepwise energy induction in units of the Higgs-neutrino mass of 0.052 eV. This was the case in the Super-Kamiokande experiments; and which was interpreted as a mass-differential between the muonic and tauonic neutrinoic forms.

Tony B.


5.The Elementary Cosmic Ray Spectrum 

The elementary Cosmic Ray Spectrum derives from the transformation of the Planck-String-Boson at the birth of the universe.
 
The following tabulation relates those transformation in energy and the modular duality between the distance parameters of the macrocosm of classical spacetime geometry and the microcosm of the quantum realm.
 
String-Boson...........Wavelength(λ)......Energy (hc/λ)............Modular Wavelength....Significance
 
 1. Planck-Boson........1.2x10-34 m...1.6 GJ  or  9.9x1027 eV....8.0x1033 m...Outside Hubble Horizon Limit
 2. Monopole-Boson...4.6x10-32 m...4.3 MJ  or  2.7x1025 eV....2.2x1031 m...Outside Hubble Horizon Limit
 3. XL-Boson............6.6x10-31 m...303 kJ  or  1.9x1024 eV....1.5x1030 m....Outside Hubble Horizon Limit
 
 4. X-K-Boson transit...8.8x10-28 m....227 J  or  1.6x1021 eV...1.1x1027 m....2πRHubble11D
 5 .X-K-Boson transit...1.0x10-27 m....201 J  or  1.2x1021 eV...1.0x1027 m....2πRHubbleHorizonLimit
 6. CosmicRayToe.......1.9x10-27 m....106 J  or  6.6x1020 eV..5.3x1026 m......2πRHubble10D
 
 7. CosmicRayAnkle....2.0x10-25 m...1.0 J  or  6.2x1018 eV.....5.0x1024 m......Galactic Supercluster Scale
 8. CosmicRayKnee(+)..1.0x10-22 m...0.002 J or 1.24x1016 eV..1.0x1022 m.....Galactic Halo(Group) Scale
 9. CosmicRayKnee(-)...6.3x10-22 m...0.3 mJ or 2.0x1015 eV..1.6x1021 m......Galactic Disc(Halo) Scale
10.CosmicRay.............1.4x10-20 m..0.002 mJ or 1.4x1013 eV...7.1x1019 m....Galactic Core Scale
 
Lower Cosmic Ray energies then become defined in standard physics, such as supernovae, neutron stars and related phenomena, engaging electron accelerations and synchrotron radiation. 
 
7. represents the ECosmic-Boson aka superstring class IIA as a D-brane attached open string dual to the (selfdual) monopole string class IIB and where the D-Brane or Dirichlet-Coupling in both cases becomes the 'intermediary' heterotic (closed loop) superstring HO(32).
It is the HO(32) superstring, which as a bosonic full-quantum spin superstring bifurcates into the subsequently emerging quark-lepton families as the K-L-Boson split into Proto-DiNeutronic Ylemic  NeutronMatter.
The Ylem then manifests the massless Higgs Bosonic precursor as a scalar 'Neutron-Boson' (10), which then becomes massinductive under utility of the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity, relating gravitational mass to inertial mass.

It are supersymmetric double neutrons which bifurcate into the observed mass content in the universe and not a decoupling matter-antimatter symmetry.
The primordial neutron beta-decay so manifests the nucleon-lepton distinction in the deceoupling of the strongweak nuclear interaction, mediated by the electromagnetic alpha-interaction hitherto unified with the omega-gravitational interaction. This primordial ylem radioactivity manifests the bosonic string class IIB as a monopolic masscurrent as a D-brane interaction in modular duality to the transformation of the selfdual magnetic monopole to the bi-dual electromagnetic cosmic rays at the ECosmic energy level.
The monopole class is chiral (selfdual) and the Ecosmic class is nonchiral (bi-dual); from this derives the nonparity of the spacial symmetry aka the CP-Violation of the weak nuclear interaction, related to neutrinoflux as monopolic superconductive currentflows.

As the heterotic classes are all 'closed looped', the elementary particles of the standard models emerge from the HE(64) class coupled to the HO(32) class in the inflationary string epoch.

8. depicts the Weyl-Boson of the Big Bang Planck-singularity of the Weyl-Geodesic of relativistic spacetime as the final 'octonionised' string class HE(8x8).
9. modulates the experimentally well measured 'knee' energy for Cosmic Rays as the distribution flux of high-energy protons as the primary particle in the 2π-factor. The wormhole radius is 10-22 m/2π for a Halo-(DarkMatter)-Radius of 2πx1022 metres.
10. is the massless ancestor of the Higgs-template and defined through the Weyl-String-Eigenenergy E*=kT*=hf*=m*c2 =1/e*=1/2Rc2.
The scale of (10) emerges from the holographic principle as 2π2R*3.f*2=e* for R*=h/(2πm'c)=1.41188..x10-20 m for a Compton Energy of E'=m'c2=2.2545..x10-6 J or 14.03 TeV, which serendipitously is the maxium energy regime for which the LHC is designed.





The SciAm article below from 1998 links to the above in clarification of the questions raised.

http://auger.cnrs.fr/presse/ScAm_jan97.html
Cosmic Rays at the Energy Frontier
These particles carry more energy
than any others in the universe.
Their origin is unknown but may be
relatively nearby
These particles carry more energy
than any others in the universe.
Their origin is unknown but may be
relatively nearby



Galactic Magnetism from first principles 


The article below could show the way for  theoretical physicists to discover the extension of General Relativity into the Quantum Gravity realms.
The Biot-Savart law (Laplace-Ampere) states Magnetic Flux (measured in Tesla=Weber/area=Volt.time=Energy/Current) to be  dB=μoi.dL/4πr² from B=μoqv/4πr². For a tangential velocity v the angular velocity ω=2πf=v/r.

The finestructure unification between the electromagnetic alpha=2πk.e²/hc and the gravitational alpha 2πGom²/hc then modifies this law as  B=Mω/2Rc² by the monopolic string mass-current M=30ec for a magnetocharge e*=2e as a Cooper-Charge for the superconductive Cosmic String, manifesting as e=½e*=½(M/30c).

{Example: The earth's magnetic field approximates as 3x10-5 Tesla (0.3 gauss) for a core-mantle differential rotation.
Mcorecore.Vcore~9x1022 kg and Rcore~1.2x106 m and ω=2π/86,400}.
Here M becomes  the unitised mass of the rotating system of angular velocity ω and a displacement radius R.
In the post below the rotation rate is said to be so 6500 cycles per minute and so w=2πf~680 radians per second.
The magnetic flux then is a function approximated by B~[3.8x10^-15]M/R).
So B increases for a given radius with the gravitomagnetic mass in a selfinduction.
Generally, a rotating cosmic body of mass M and spinrate ω selfinduces a gravitomagnetic field in analogy to the laws of Maxwell, Faraday and Lenz in a form of B=Mω/2Rc².
 
For a typically evolved galaxy such as the Milky Way, the masses are of the order of 2x1042 kg, inclusive the dark matter as gravitationally acting component. A typical radius is of the order of 50,000 lightyears or so 5x1020 metres and a galactic rotation rate can be approximated in so 250 Million years, being the rotation period of 'our' solar system about the galactic core.
 
This then gives the INTRINSIC magnetic field for a nonionised charge distribution and for the Milky Way: B=(2x1042 kg)(2π/8x1015 s)/(18x1016.5x1020 m)~2x10-11 Tesla or 2x10-7 gauss or 0.2 microgauss. This is on the scale of the New Scientist article mentioned above.
 
So what then are the 'seedling' magnetic fields, proposed in that latter article to have derived from Cosmic Strings at even smaller magnitudes?
 
It is simple, when we realise that this seedling must be the entire universe itself.
The Hubble-Frequency is so 1.9x10-18 s and the Hubble-Radius is so 2x1026 metres and the mass-seedling is 2x1051 kg baryonic and 6.5x1052 kg for the asymptotic closure in Euclidean flatness of zero curvature.
 
This gives a cosmic magnetic field of B=9x10-10 Tesla and B=3x10-8 Tesla and just the measured galactic typical 'upper bounds' for the universe's mass say.
 
The universe so displays magnetism on account of its Hubble-parameters, which are magnified string parameters.
And the absolute minimum frequency for the wormhole is 3.33x10-31 seconds and applying this as a Zero-Point for the cosmogenesis; the 'seedling' magnetic field would become so B=1.4x10-22 Tesla  and B=4.7x10-21 Tesla for our total mass distributions.
 
The Cosmic Strings are always associated with Black Holes as Vortex 'seeds' and depict the monopolic mass-current from the upper bounded monopole mass of 2.7x1016 GeV, which is the string unification scale as first Planck-Nugget transformation.
 
Tony B.
DID colossal spinning loops of energy whip up the magnetic fields that thread through galaxies and may even stretch across intergalactic space? That's the idea being put forward to explain the universe's mysterious magnetic fields.
"Wherever we look, we find a magnetic field," says Mark Wyman, a cosmologist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. "But nobody can explain where they came from."
Galactic fields have a strength of about 10-10 tesla - one-hundred-thousandth of Earth's magnetic field - and cosmologists calculate that they could have been amplified from even weaker "seed fields" in the early universe of only about 10-34 tesla. "That's small in strength, but the problem is that you need something to create that field over a huge area, the size of a galaxy," says Wyman.
He and his colleagues realised that exotic objects known as cosmic strings could be large enough to ...
The complete article is 680 words long.
--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Zeus <zeusrdx@...> wrote:
>
> Did Cosmic 'Egg-Beaters' Leave Magnetic Legacy? Huge loops of the exotic objects known as cosmic strings could have whipped up the first magnetic fields that now thread through galaxies. That's the idea being put forward by a cosmologist in Canada to explain where the universe's mysterious magnetic fields came from...MORE
>
http://www.rbduncan.com/

Towards a new test of general relativity?
23 March 2006
Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity.
 
Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.
Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. Superconductors are special materials that lose all electrical resistance at a certain temperature. Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment. The new experiment tests a conjecture by Tajmar and de Matos that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart).
 
Experiment in ARC Seibersdorf research 
 
Small acceleration sensors placed at different locations close to the spinning superconductor, which has to be accelerated for the effect to be noticeable, recorded an acceleration field outside the superconductor that appears to be produced by gravitomagnetism. "This experiment is the gravitational analogue of Faraday's electromagnetic induction experiment in 1831.

It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.
 
 Gravitomagnetic induction of gravitational fields

Gravitomagnetic induction of gravitational fields


"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.
In parallel to the experimental evaluation of their conjecture, Tajmar and de Matos also looked for a more refined theoretical model of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment. They took their inspiration from superconductivity. The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled.
 
 
"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and it consequences in the quantum world."

The results were presented at a one-day conference at ESA's European Space and Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in the Netherlands, 21 March 2006. Two papers detailing the work are now being considered for publication.
The papers can be accessed on-line at the Los Alamos pre-print server using the references: gr-qc/0603033 and gr-qc/0603032.

The results were presented at a one-day conference at ESA's European Space and Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in the Netherlands, 21 March 2006. Two papers detailing the work are now being considered for publication.
The papers can be accessed on-line at the Los Alamos pre-print server using the references: gr-qc/0603033 and gr-qc/0603032.

For more detailed information, please contact:

Dipl-Ing Dr Martin Tajmar
Head of Business Field Space Propulsion
ARC Seibersdorf research GmbH
A-2444 Seibersdorf
Austria
Phone: +43 (0)5 05 50 31 42
Fax: +43 (0)5 05 50 33 66
Email:
martin.tajmar @ arcs.ac.at
Web: http://ilfb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar

Dr Clovis J. de Matos
General Studies Officer
European Space Agency ESA-HQ
Advanced Concepts and Studies Office - EUI-AC
8-10 Rue Mario Nikis
75738 Paris Cedex 15
France
Tel: +33 (0)1 53 69 74 98
Fax: +33 (0)1 53 69 76 51
Email:
clovis.de.matos @ esa.int 

Cosmic 'egg-beaters' may have left magnetic legacy

DID colossal spinning loops of energy whip up the magnetic fields that thread through galaxies and may even stretch across intergalactic space? That's the idea being put forward to explain the universe's mysterious magnetic fields.
"Wherever we look, we find a magnetic field," says Mark Wyman, a cosmologist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. "But nobody can explain where they came from."
Galactic fields have a strength of about 10-10 tesla - one-hundred-thousandth of Earth's magnetic field - and cosmologists calculate that they could have been amplified from even weaker "seed fields" in the early universe of only about 10-34 tesla. "That's small in strength, but the problem is that you need something to create that field over a huge area, the size of a galaxy," says Wyman.
He and his colleagues realised that exotic objects known as cosmic strings could be large enough to ...
The complete article is 680 words long.
--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Zeus <zeusrdx@...> wrote:
>
> Did Cosmic 'Egg-Beaters' Leave Magnetic Legacy? Huge loops of the exotic objects known as cosmic strings could have whipped up the first magnetic fields that now thread through galaxies. That's the idea being put forward by a cosmologist in Canada to explain where the universe's mysterious magnetic fields came from...MORE
>
http://www.rbduncan.com/



This post from Cambridge University illustrates the 'very important' phase transitions of energy in the early universe. Whilst controversial or speculative at present, the 'Cosmic String scenario' will be found to best describe the early universe.I particularly draw the reader's attention to the following excerpt about 'Cosmic Strings':
 
...They are very thin and may stretch across the visible universe. A typical GUT string has a thickness that is less then a trillion times smaller that the radius of an Hydrogen atom. Still, a 10 km length of one such string will weigh as much as the earth itself!...
 
Here are the details wrt Quantum Relativity, where we shall derive the actual Cosmic String Density from first principles.
 
The wormhole has a perimeter of 10-22 metres and a linedensity of 2.22x10-20 kg as the 'knee-energy' for the well studied and analysed Cosmic Rays (1.24x1016 eV).
 
So the mass-density of this Weyl-Boson-String is mw=2.22x10-20 kg/7.96x10-68 m³~2.8x1047 kg/m³ for a toroidal 3D-volume as a fundamental density for a superconductive Cosmic String moving at lightspeed (see below).

The mass of the earth is so 6x1024 kg and a hydrogen atom is so 10-10 metres (1 angstroem) across.
This is a density for the Cosmic String of  6x1024 kg/(π[10-12x5x10-11]²x104 m)~7.6x1064 kg/m³ and using the approximation given by Cambridge. This approximation becomes more precise in defining the radius of a Cosmic String as a wormholeradius of precisely rw=10-22 m/2π and this leads directly to the ZPE.
 
The Vacuum-Density or ZPE pervading the universe is precisely the wormhole-energy quantum/volume of a spacetimequantum=hfw/(2π²rw³)=2.5x1064 Joules/m³. This modulates the Planck-Density of mP.c²/(2π²LP³)~9.7x10111  Joules/m³ in a factor of so 4x1047 for a scalefactor
(mP/mw)(rw/lP)³. 
This wormhole is however modulated to the classical electron radius in a factor of 1010/360=Re/2πr
w.
It is this modulation, which represents the phase-transition and the 'breaking of domains' indicated below.
This scalefactor then also incorporates the 'nature' of the monopole and the topological effects described in the Cambridge Cosmology link.
 
The elementary Cosmic String Density then manifests as the nuclear interaction asymptotic confinement scale of the classical electron radius mapped onto the ZPE of the Heisenberg Vacuum (say).
The elementary Cosmic String Density then manifests as the nuclear interaction asymptotic confinement scale of the classical electron radius mapped onto the ZPE of the Heisenberg Vacuum (say).
 
For a wormhole-density of ρw=2.8x1047 kg/m³ , the nuclear/wormhole modulation gives a Cosmic String density of ρcosmicstring=ρw.(Re/rw)³ or so 1.5x1072 kg/m³ .
 
So the Cambridge statement should read:
 
...They are very thin and may stretch across the visible universe. A typical GUT string has a thickness that is less then a trillion times smaller that the radius of an Hydrogen atom. Still, a 1 mile length of one such string will weigh as much as the sun itself!......
 
Tony B.

Cambridge Cosmology: Cosmic Strings et al

Cosmic Strings & other Topological Defects

What are topological defects?

Topological defects are stable configurations of matter formed at phase transitions in the very early universe. These configurations are in the original, symmetric or old phase, but nevertheless they persist after a phase transition to the asymmetric or new phase is completed. There are a number of possible types of defects, such as domain walls, cosmic strings, monopoles, textures and other `hybrid' creatures. The type of defect formed is determined by the symmetry properties of the matter and the nature of the phase transition.

Below you can find a brief description of each type of defect:

Domain walls:

These are two-dimensional objects that form when a discrete symmetry is broken at a phase transition. A network of domain walls effectively partitions the universe into various `cells'. Domain walls have some rather peculiar properties. For example, the gravitational field of a domain wall is repulsive rather than attractive.

Domain walls are associated with models in which there is more than one separated mimimum.

Cosmic strings:

These are one-dimensional (that is, line-like) objects which form when an axial or cylindrical symmetry is broken. Strings can be associated with grand unified particle physics models, or they can form at the electroweak scale. They are very thin and may stretch across the visible universe. A typical GUT string has a thickness that is less then a trillion times smaller that the radius of an Hydrogen atom. Still, a 10 km lenght of one such string will weigh as much as the earth itself!

Cosmic strings are associated with models in which the set of minima are not simply-connected, that is, the vacuum manifold has `holes' in it. The minimum energy states on the left form a circle and the string corresponds to a non-trivial winding around this.

Monopoles:

These are zero-dimensional (point-like) objects which form when a spherical symmetry is broken. Monopoles are predicted to be supermassive and carry magnetic charge. The existence of monopoles is an inevitable prediction of grand unified theories (GUTs); this is one of the puzzles of the standard cosmology.

Only the three-dimensional `hedgehog' configuration on the left corresponds to a monopole.

Textures:

These form when larger, more complicated symmetry groups are completely broken. Textures are delocalized topological defects which are unstable to collapse. The potential cosmological implications of textures are described here.

Examples of delocalized texture configurations in one and two dimensions.

Have they been seen?

Due to their extremely high energies, cosmological defects have not yet been detected, and it is virtually impossible to produce them, even in the most powerful particle accelerators. On the other hand, this is one of the reasons why people are interested in them - if they can be found today, they will be a unique direct link to the physics of the first moments of the universe. Some observational searches are already under way!

However, defects are not exclusive of the early universe! they exist and have been studied in a wide variety of more `down-to-earth' contexts. In the laboratory, topological defects are commonly observed in condensed matter systems. Simple examples are the domains in a ferromagnet; regions in which the magnetic dipoles are aligned, separated by domain walls. Liquid crystals exhibit an array of topological defects, such as strings and monopoles. Defects can also been found in biochemistry, notably in the procees of protein folding.

As an example, here are two photographs (obtained with an optical microscope) of strings in a nematic liquid crystal (from I.Chuang et. al., 1991):

Fig.1: Long-string intercommuting in a liquid crystal. The two strings excange ends at the crossing.




Fig.2 : The evolution of a string network in a liquid crystal. The four snapshots have the same size, but were obtained at different times. Notice the progressive dilution of the string network.

You might want to refer back to these for comparison when we describe the evolution of the strings in the cosmological context......


Why do they form?

If cosmic strings or other topological defects can form at a cosmological phase transition then they will form. This as first pointed out by Kibble and, in a cosmological context, the defect formation process is known as the Kibble mechanism.

The simple fact is that causal effects in the early universe can only propagate (as at any time) as the speed of light c. This means that at a time t, regions of the universe separated by more than a distance d=ct can know nothing about each other. In a symmetry breaking phase transition, different regions of the universe will choose to fall into different minima in the set of possible states (this set is known to mathematicians as the vacuum manifold). Topological defects are precisely the `boundaries' between these regions with different choices of minima, and their formation is therefore an inevitable consequence of the fact that differentregions cannot agree on their choices.

For example, in a theory with two minima, plus + and minus -, then neighbouring regions separated by more than ct will tend to fall randomly into the different states (as shown below). Interpolating between these different minima will be a
domain wall.

The Kibble mechanism for the formation of domain walls.
Cosmic strings will arise in slightly more complicated theories in which the minimum energy states possess `holes'. The strings will simply correspond to non-trivial `windings' around these holes (as illustrated below).

The Kibble mechanism for the formation of cosmic strings.


Why do we want to study them?

Because, as we pointed out above, they provide a unique link to the physics of the very early universe. Furthermore, they can crucially affect the evolution of the universe! So given that they must necessarily form, their study is an unavoidable part of any serious attempt to understand the early universe.
The detailed consequences very with the type of defect considered. On one hand,
domain walls and monopoles are cosmologically catastrophic. Any cosmological model in which they form will evolve in a way that contradicts the basic observational facts that we know about the universe. Such models must therefore be ruled out!

On the other hand,
cosmic strings and (possibly) textures are much more benign. Among other things, they could be the `seeds' that led to the formation of the large-scale structures we observe today, as well as the anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background. They could also be at the origin of some of the `dark matter' of the universe.
However, before one can analyse all these scenarios, one should make sure that one understands how strings
evolve. And in order to do this, one must inevitably resort to numerical simulations...

[Back][Hot big bang][Galaxies][Relic radiation][Cosmic strings][Inflation][Cosmology][Next] 
 

Quantum Gravity and the Higher Dimensions

Reference: Z.K.Silagadze's paper at: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002255

"TeV scale gravity, mirror universe, and ... dinosaurs"

Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia

(I have corrected some of the English and elborated on the equations (I do not like the geometrization of units for example. The main formulas are from the Silagadze paper referenced however and are common knowledge in the scientific data base. Tony B.).


The hierarchy mystery

The energy scale where gravity becomes strong and quantum gravity effects are essential is given by the Planck mass.

This mass can be estimated as follows. Suppose two particles of equal masses m are separated at a distance which equals to the corresponding Compton radius:

Rc=h/2πmc.

If the gravitational interaction energy of the system mc²=Gm²/Rc= 2πGm³c/h is of the same order as the particle rest mass m, then the former can not be neglected.

This gives for the Plank mass:  m=MP=√(hc/2πG)~1019 GeV and as the energy scale for quantum gravity.

The energy scale for electroweak unification (EEW) is the Fermi scale of about 300 GeV and the GUT-Monopole scale (EGUT of Grand Unified Theories) is at 2.7x1016 GeV for inclusion of the strong nuclear interaction.

This huge difference between this quantum gravity energy scale and the electroweak scale  is astonishing and constitutes the so called hierarchy problem. There is also a gauge hierarchy problem: the Grand Unification scale EGUT is very big compared to EEW.

Any successful theory should not only explain these hierarchies, but also provide some mechanism to protect them against radiative corrections. Recently an interesting idea was suggested by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali [38] how to deal with the hierarchy problem. Certainly, there will be no problem, if there is no hierarchy. But how can we lower the quantum gravity scale so that the hierarchy disappears? It turns out that this is possible if extra spatial dimensions exist with big enough compactification radius.

Suppose besides the usual x,y,z coordinates there exist some additional spatial coordinates x1,...,xn, which are compactified on circles with a common (for simplicity) compactification radius R. In such a world with toroidal compactification, the gravitational potential, created by an object of mass m, should be periodic in the extra n-dimensions.
That is, it should be invariant under replacements  (xi → xi ±2πR).

Besides it should vanish at spatial infinity and obey the (n+3)-dimensional Laplace equation. These requirements are satisfied by the following function [39]:

V= -ΣG*m/[r²+Σ (xi-2πRn)²]½(n+1)

Here summation is for n from 1 to n and where G* is Newton's gravitational constant for  (n + 4) space-time dimensions and with r²= x² +y² +z² as the usual three-dimensional radial distance. If the compactification radius R is very large, only the term with n1 = 0,...,nn= 0 survives in the sum and we get the Newton law in n+4 dimensions:

V~ -G*m/r*(n+1)  and where  r*=√{r²+Σxi²}....................(4)

This reduces to the 4D spacetime form for n=0, i.e. no additional spacial dimensions for the gravitational potential with G*=G and r*=r:

V=∫(Gm/x²)dx= -Gm/r for the integration from x=0 to x=r.

But if R « r, the sum can be approximated by an integral:

V~ -G*m/(2πR)n∫dⁿx/[r² + x²]½(n+1) ~ -G*m/r.Rn= -Gm/r.

Therefore for the conventional 4-dimensional Newton constant we have G=G*/Rn.

On the other hand, the fundamental multidimensional quantum gravity scale MP* is now determined from (4) and for a compactification radius R=R0, which transforms the Planck-Length
 LP=RP=h/2πcMP  into r*=R0.

MP corresponds to LP=RP=h/2πcMP  for r*=r=LP and MP* corresponds to r*=R0=h/2πcMP*  for r*=√{r²+Σxi²} and with r*(n+1)~r.Rn for low scale quantum gravity.

The  potential V is given by the equation (4), and we have the gravitational interaction energy (with mc2=MP.Gm/r in 4D spacetime):

MP*.V(1/MP*)=MP*.V(R0)=MP*.(G*m/r*(n+1))=MP*.(G*m/R0(n+1))  

Therefore mc2= MP*.G*m{2πcMP*/h}(n+1)   or

MP*=(c2/G*).(h/2πcMP*)}(n+1).

So  MP*(n+2)=(1/G*)(h/2πc)n.(hc2/2πc)={hc/2πG*}(h/2πc)n.

Also, G=G*/Rn = hc/2πMP2  for  MP*(n+2)=MP2/Rn(h/2πc)n.

This is    {MP/MP*}2={R/R0}n as MP*=h/2πcR0.

Ergo    MP/M*P~√(R/R0)n .......................................................(5)   

Here R0 = 1/M*P and R~ 10-19 m (m – one meter), if the fundamental quantum gravity scale
 M*P is in a few TeV range. Therefore the initial MP/EEW hierarchy problem can be traded to another hierarchy: the largeness of the compactification radius compared to R0.

Namely, we get from (5) the corresponding compactification radius as:

R=(1.6x10-8/1.6x10-24) (2/n).{R0}~10(32/n)-19 m.

For one extra dimension this means modification of the Newton’s gravity at scales R = 1013 m and is certainly excluded. But already for n = 2, R ~ 1 mm – just the scale where our present day experimental knowledge about gravity ends.

...

Tony B. commentary:

The above is the appropriate multidimensional treatment of quantum gravity.

The missing ingredient is simply the assumption of the Compactification radius to be R0=10-19 m, which gives the mm scale.

The correct compactification radius is R0=10-22/2π metres for a characteristic

MP*=2.22x10-20 kg or 1.24x104 TeV.

R=(MP/mps)(2/n).Rps=(λps/2π).{c³λps²/2πGh} (1/n).

This approximates as  ~(1.6x10-23).(5.8x1023) (1/n).


For n=1;  R1=9.23... m and macroscopic as the result above. 

For n=2;  R2=1.21..x10-11 m and the typical atomic scale.

For n=3;  R3=1.33...x10-15 m and the typical nuclear/subatomic (fermi) scale.

For n=4;  R4=1.39...x10-17 m and the typical mesonic scale.

For n=5;  R5=9.05...x10-19 m and the typical outer neutrino-kernel scale.

For n=6;  R6=1.46...x10-19 m and the typical mean neutrino-kernel scale.

For n=7;  R7=3.97...x10-20 m and the typical inner neutrino-kernel scale.

For n=8;  R8=1.49...x10-20 m and the typical gauge/graviton-kernel scale.

8 extra spacial dimensions so define the heterotic supermembrane HE(8x8) of octonion normed lie algebra of exceptional class E8 in 12D-F-Space.

The bosonic superstring resides in 26 dimensions for which

n=22 for R22=1.92...x10-22 m  and additional dimensions approach the wormhole limit of the Weyl geodesic as the Big Bang quantum gravitational 'singularity'.

The limit for n→∞ so is Rpsps/2π=10-22/2π=1.591549..x10-23 metres and as the wormhole radius which is the scale of the Kerr-Torus of cross-sectional area of LP2.

The supermembrane EpsEss has eigenenergy R0=Rps and the transformed and magnified Planck-Mass mps=hfps/c²=h/cλps.

It is this eigenstate, which applies for the physical universe observed and measured in the pursuits of historical science.


Tony B. : www.tonyb@freeyellow.com

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here