Sent:
Monday, June 01, 2009 10:44 PM
Subject:
[Theoretical_Physics] New to group
I have studied
topology, group theory, vector and tensor analysis, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and string theory. I want to learn
from this group because I belong to a professional astronomy group, which is very informative, but they seem to stay away
from theoretical physics, especially string theory. I work for national public radio, but spend a much greater time studying
math and physics than I do communications courses. Many younger people jump on these abstract topics in physics, but have
no idea what is going on. They think it is cool and it gives them a sense of psuedo-intellectual power. I spend an unusual
amount of time reserching these topics because they are fascinating. CERN seems to be reaching for higher dimensions on the
Terascale and quantum foam is trying to fit with planck length (although I've heard other versions). There is still a
discrepancy between electroweak symmetry breaking and the Planck scale. CERN proposes the currents in string theory have to
be taken down to 103 TeV. Its fascinating, but energy scales of this nature seem impossible to work with. Heterotic
string theory with complex fermions and free fermions is a candidate. My question is how can this be constructed when SUSY
has not been proven? I know string theorists try to do this without SUSY. I have heard they need it, but they do not. This
is where I get confused. If the quantum mechanical model has N=4 supersymmetries, does it need four supercharged twisted,
Dirac operators? I know the behaivor of gravitons has been studied from supersymmetric transformations. What is going on with
SUSY?
Hi gizjack!
The trouble with SUSY is in the sought supersymmetry between fermions and bosons not being found
in exhibited Goldstone bosons of Higgs induction, but in actual spontaneous massless Goldstone agents, precursive to the Higgs
induction.
This means that the Higgs Boson has ancestors and
is not fundamental in the standard model as is commonly presumed.
This implies a prior supersymmetry inherent in nature, which is NOT found in matter-antimatter
decoupling, but in a 'supercharging' of the gauge photon carrier in antistate to a 'suppressed' antigauge.
This derives from the 26-dimensional
bosonic superstring in a energy scale transformation from the M-brane class into five subclasses, only type 1 manifesting
the Planck-scale.
The first transform of the Planck-string
into class IIB is monopolic at the GUT energy of 2.7x1016 GeV as the Dirac monopole.
Because of the duality couplings,
the five string classes transform into each other in the kaleidoscope of the 2-dimensional M-space manifold, the final transform
being the heterotic 8x8 class coupled directly to the HO(32) class at the energy level of 1.9x1015 GeV.
This is the so called
X-L-Boson eigenstate thought as derived from the matter-antimatter coupling.
The XL-Boson can be obtained however from dineutron bifurcation and as direct ancestor of the Higgs template.
So no antimatter was engaged
in the inflaton scenario ending 3.33x10-31 seconds after Nulltime.
The matter-antimatter coupling remains pertinent as the ZPE-Heisenberg metric background, which is however restricted
to the presence of mass, say a nucleus to enable pair-production by gauge interaction between all of the gauges, say for an
incoming gamma photon.
This gamma photon is NOT 'supercharged' (or colourcharged) because it is a derivative from
mass-coupled inertia, say a solar fusion proton, accelerated angularly in Coulomb electrocharging.
But the gauge graviton,
emitted by the interacting mass carrier (say nucleus) is colourcharged and the so called gauge 'virtual'
photon of the emr interaction is also colourcharged.
So the gamma
photon can become 'colourcharged' by exchanging the supercharge with the 'virtual photon' from the ZPE background.
This allows the now 'decharged'
gauge photon to assume the antiphotonic eigenstate and interact inertially.
The inertial boson state can be given in colourcharges Yellow-Cyan-Magenta and the radiative colourcharge couplings
Red-Green-Blue, which as unitary wavefunction reduce to either a 'pure' radiative state E=hf; or a 'pure'
inertial state E=mc2.
Two massless gauges in
state-antistate will transform the energy SU(3) selfstate via W=E=hf=mc2=B via the so called 8=2x2x2 gluonic permutations
in the trifurcation: WWW→WWB→WBW→BWW→WBB→BWB→BBW→BBB.
{For matter-antimatter quark-antiquarkcoupling this reduces to 4=2x2 SU(2) states WW→WB→BW→BB}.
The Higgs precursor so
can be modeled on RGB=W transforming into YCM=B=YYCCMM, where however the actual restmass induction becomes a second
generation from an earlier massless eigenstate for matter as say YCM and for antimatter as the anticyclic MCY.
The details then suppress
the antimatter eigenstate to ever materialise in Higgs induction and remain restricted to the matter-antimatter coupling of
the ZPE.
Iow, the Higgs Induction represents the substitution of the massive antimatter eigenstate MCY by a supression
of the gauge antiphoton BGR (as RGB+RGB=YCM and BGR+BGR=MCY and the second generation RGB+BGR=MGGM=YBBY=CRRC as the matter-antimatter
blueprints and as the VPE=VortexPE=ZPE).
The unification physics
of the actual supersymmetry inherent in nature, so becomes the coupling of longrange and shortrange gauges.
RGB+BGR, both righthanded say, negate in BGR doublelefthanded to attain the ZPE state
of 0-bosonic spin.
The RGB then defines the colourcharge of the
'virtual photon', the BGR becomes the gauge antiphoton, however suppressed by the superposing Higgs template YYCCMM
in inertia interaction with the strongweak coupling of the Gluon (also RGB to negate the Graviton as BGR(-2)).
Then the weakon coupling becomes electroweak in this YYCCMM for matter assuming a bifurcated
fermionic coupling, say in a leptonic ring (tauon, muon or electron) and a leptonic kernel (antineutrino as RRGGBB) for
the charged weakon currents in the weak parity violation.
The
kernel coupling relates the Gluon as fermionic nucleon coupler to the antineutrino for the strongweak coupling by the W=B
supercharge coupling between RRGGBB and the Higgs Massinduction YYCCMM.
{The neutrol Z-boson currents couple antineutrino to neutrinos as a 'squared eigenstate' of the 1-spin}.
The completed gauge unification
in M-space so is symbolised in:
RGB(+1)=Electromagnetic supercharged
agent
BGR(+1)=Massless Weakon supercharged agent
RGB(+1)=Massless Gluon linking shortrange to longrange
BGR(-2)=Graviton, negating the supercharges from the basic ZPE
YYCCMM(-1)=RestMassPhoton, as Higgs Precursor, negating the spin-couplings as third generation unifier
(linked to dark matter and the suppression of antimatter MCY in favour of a 'doubling or squaring 2x=xx' of matter
YCM.
The
14 TeV energy level of the LHC matches the energy of the RMP in its Compton lambda of 8.9x10-20 meters.
The actual physically applicable energy level of the superstring is however at the 0.002
Joule range at a wormhole radius of 1.6x10-23 meters for the heterotic class HE(8x8).
This latter value is reduced from the Planck-Energy in a factor of 1013 and so will become
subject to experimental verification at the 12,450 TeV energy level.
No extended supersymmetry, no anthropic principle and no separated multiverse scenario
and no antimatter are necessary.
John Shadow
Hi gizmo gizjack!
What is your 'huge' question in your post?
You appear to connect many many specialised jargon labels in your questions; but a coherent basic line of enquiry
seems to be missing.
The many labels you are invoking, all have specialised meanings
which should only be used in context, especially the context of the lie algebras used in the mathematical formalisms of quantum
field theories.
I kind of 'get' your general drift as relating to the nobel
quest of reducing 11-dimensional supergravity with its compactified (or conifolded) coordinate spaces into the observed and
measured 'unfolded' dimensions of either Minkowski R4 spacetime or a Klein-Kaluza R5 spacetime.
This is indeed most appropriate, as the 'intractability' of Gravity for unification with the other
interactions stems from the gauge graviton being the required supersymmetric harmoniser in the massless 'spontaneous'
symmetry breaking between the state-antistate of the electromagnetic longrange gauge.
So
a forum like this one, can become a medium for debate and interaction to share certain insights BEYOND the so called standard
models with their particular assumptions and WITHOUT dismissing those selfsame standard models, the latter having often become
verified by experiment to a large percentage.
Your posts hitherto seem to accept many
of the assumptions of the standard models (say the priority of inertia metrics and the resulting quantum mechanical abstract
formalisms); yet you then challenge and question those models seemingly from the perspective
of attempting to 'simplify' the predicted outcomes, derived from the applied formalisms.
You cannot have it both ways.
Either you fully accept, what the formalisms
imply and then seek to experimentally verify the theoretical predictions; or you propose modification of the basic assumptions
and modify or refine the standard model with those 'new insights'.
This is what
I tried to do in my last reply to you.
I attempted to show you how and where the assumptions
of the standard model can be modified to 'explain' the 'shortcomings' and divergences between experiment and
theory; say the CP-symmetry violation linked to the matter-antimatter cosmogenesis; the pointparticle nature of the electron
in QFT being incompatible with the classical electron inertia in QED; and the preeminence of gravitational mass before inertial
mass in the equivalence principle.
Considering
your familiarity with highly technical nomenclature; I presumed you would easily find yourself in a position to comment on
my reply and to ask pertinent questions about interconnectivity.
Best wishes to you!
John Shadow
PS.: In regards to my own expertise. I am by no means an expert on the
standard models; either in quantum mechanics or in cosmology. I last attended university in March 1985 in St. Lucia, Queensland,
Australia.
I have no affiliations with any academic establishment or exponents. However
I have followed all the major developments in the standard models for almost 30 years now and have worked on the idea and
model to extend (not deconstruct) General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with a particular theory of demetrication.
Demetrication creates a 'background' for string theory, independent on the coordinate (tensor) structure
of Riemannian curvature space; BUT extends Einsteins dream of a purely geometric theory to explain the workings of nature
in the formalisms of science and of mathematics. This theory I have termed Quantum Relativity or QR.
QR is capable to heuristically construct the 'eventualities' beyond the Planck-Scale and particularly
QR has found the topological requirements and initial- and boundary conditions to analyse the cosmogony from first principles
and before any metrics existed in a spacial or a temporal sense.
For example the electron as a pointparticle in QFT is reconciled with the electron of the QED in describing
the wormhole metric (as Weylian tensor limit) as the shared and universal 'core' of the Higgs template.
This means, that all the so called gauge agents are really the same 'particle' in various modes of
energy-momentum expression.
The fermionic antineutrino can change into a bosonic gluon
in a supersymmetry inherent in the Higgs template, rendering higgsinos, neutralinos, gauginos and gluinos superfluous.
The Higgs boson is composite in the manner of the pointparticle, being the wormhole minimum metric displacement,
being nuclear-duality coupled in strongweak association, i.e. the quantum geometric definition and construction of the W-minus
weakon.
Here then is the electron of the QED as the 'leptonic ring structure'
of the electroweak interaction interacting with the magnetostrong interaction of the gluon-antineutrino coupling.
The scale of the Higgs Boson is accomodative of:
1. The classical (QED)
electron radius
2. The asymptotic colourcharge confinement of the gluon interaction
3. The size of the (charged) weakon interaction
4. the size of the (neutral)
Z-boson interaction as say a majorana antineutrino superposition of electron and muon.
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:17 AM
Subject: [Theoretical_Physics] Compactification and a huge question
Are antisymmetric tensors equivalent to a psuedoscalar? According to string theory, orbifold
conformal field theories provide compactification spaces that reduce the maximal supersymmetry in four dimensions. 10d-6d-4d
or just the three spatials in "our" universe. In heterotic string theory, orbifold symmetries have to be found under
which some of the four four-dimensional gravitini are not invariant. In supersymmetry algebra, a gravitino and an antisymmetric
tensor form single representations. A tensor of the second rank in three dimensions transforms under rotations like the products
of two independent vectors. Invariant tensors are antisymmetric. Theoretically, a supergravity multiplet contains the metric,
six vectors, a scalar and an antisymmetric tensor and four Majorana gravitini. Why won't gravity unite in our 3+1? Loop
quantum gravity makes attempts, but I have heard it is too philisophical. Then again, I quess quantum foam could be philisophical.
It is impossible to measure string theory, but it is physical. Tensors are tricky, kind of like a simple generalization of
a vector. What makes it hard is that tensors are represented by their components. I do not think you can picture a tensor.
If you could, I could not comprehend its visual make-up.
