Speculation

I think that I may have a conceptual means of relating gravity to the other forces. At best this is insightful {I hope], but not rigourus. This idea is merely an interpretation of historically recognized work of others.

Solenoids [helices or catenoids] may be functionally responsible for the forces.

See ‘Iron Core Solenoid’ contrasting air / iron solenoids, each with helical wiring [Hyperphysics, GSU, next to last topic that webpage]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html

I made similar comments at the Reference Frame in ‘Veneziano & Gasperini: book’ and Backreaction ‘FIAS, the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies’.

]]>In TGD critical cosmology is almost unique from the requirement of imbeddability to M^4xCP_2. The astonishing finding of last week was that it predicts accelerating expansion. The interpretation of accelerated periods of expansion would be in terms of quantum criticality of phase transition increasing the value of gravitational hbar and thus also the sizes of large voids. These quantum phase transitions would be universal and appear in all length scales and define cosmic counterparts for quantum transitions at atomic length scale. A possible application that I have already suggested would be to RHIC.

These transitions would be between stationary cosmologies serving as models for stationary quantum states. They would be modelled by small deformations of vacuum extremals extremizing curvature scalar for the induced metric (conservation of gravitational four momentum in this kind of situation). Again something highly unique.

By criticality Lambda would be still be there but would tell the density of very large hbar dark matter assignable to various kinds of string like objects rather than energy. Note however that pressure negative during the critical period as it is for genuine lambda (think of transferring Lambda sqrt(g) to the matter side of Einstein’s equations). The microscopic reason would be however the phase transition increasing hbar.

Best, Matti

]]>*I suspect that both approaches are correct and are just different ways of looking at the same elephant.*

You may be right, and I used to think about DE versions too, but it’s not clear that they remain equivalent in the full QG theory, and I doubt very much that they do since Lambda=0 seems to be required by the flat space (QFT) limit of the latest spin foam models. And some of us like the idea that Lambda=0 is required by a QG principle of ‘covariance’. Moreover, I think the conceptual picture of an emergent GR (not to mention Riofrio’s WMAP analysis) works much better with no DE, which is an ugly idea.

]]>You said over on Tommaso’s blog

“… Just one major gripe: under step 11 you mention MacDowell-Mansouri for DE etc., but we can get a no-DE varying-c cosmology from the Jordan moonshine picture by using 3 Times from the SO(3,3) twistor picture a la (eg.) Sparling. …”.

I was not sure whether I should say this over on Tommso’s blog or here, but I decided to say it here to avoid getting too far off-topic (about model details) there, so:

You are right that my use of Spin(2,4) and MacDowell-Mansouri getting Dark Energy and constant c is not the only way to do step 11.

For some time my friend Danny Ross Lunsford, who advocates using Spin(3,3), and I have had friendly discussions about relative merits of the Spin(3,3) approach and the Spin(2,4) approach, and I don’t think that the Spin(3,3) approach is wrong, it is just that I feel more comfortable with Spin(2,4) and Dark Energy and constant c, so that is how I write my stuff.

However,

since it is clear (see the Penrose and Rindler books) that the twistors of Spin(3,3) are equivalent to the conformal quaternionic stuff of Spin(2,4),

I suspect that both approaches are correct and are just different ways of looking at the same elephant.

So,

it is my guess that a fully worked-out variable-c model with no explicit Dark Energy will (through the dynamics of the varying c) be physically equivalent to the conformal constant-c with Dark Energy.

Such a possible equivalence is something that I would like to write up in a future paper.

As to what might be an obstruction to such a possible equivalence,

at the Clifford Algebra level

Cl(2,4) is the 4×4 quaternionic matrix algebra M(4,Q)

and

Cl(3,3) is the 8×8 real matrix algebra M(8,R)

but

I am not sure whether that makes a physically important difference.

So I think that it would be useful to work on both approaches, and try to some day show either that they are physically equivalent or that there is some specific experiment that could distinguish them.

Tony Smith

]]>thank you very much for polemic comments! They saved my day!

I have personally had a period of disbelief on Higgs and I wrote equally polemic comments;-).

I believed that p-adic thermodynamics explains both fermion and boson masses until it became clear that the mass ratio for W and Z having purely group theoretical interpretation is very very difficult to reproduce without Higgs. This is a real challenge for Higgs-non-believers.

Standard model introduces Higgs in ad hoc manner but in TGD Higgs appears as naturally gauge bosons (wormhole contacts with fermion and antifermion at opposite throats) so that now I have decided to believe that Higgs exist in my personal Universe.

The notion of coherent state is the conceptual piece behind Higgs vacuum expectation value and I have been also skeptical about this notion: especially in the case of super-conductivity where the coherent state of Cooper pairs breaks fermion number conservation among other things. Zero energy ontology saved the situation in this respect and I am relieved.

TGD Higgs however does not determine fermion masses and everything is consistent with the assumption that Higgs contribution to fermion masses vanishes. There is actually a good argument stating that Higgs cannot develop vacuum expectation at fermionic space-time sheets (requires TGD based notion of space-time and about generalized Feynman diagrams): the very notion of this vacuum expectation makes sense only in gauge boson sector. This means that Higgs could have very small coupling to fermions and Higgs might not be found for long time.

So a friendly warning to Kea: if Higgs will not be found in the expected schedule, do not open the bottle of champaign immediately;)!

Best, Matti

]]>