🚀 go-pugleaf

Dio wrote:
> 
> island <3FAF95DD.B8DEE52D@sundial.net>...
> CUT
> 
> We do not know what physical principles govern the fundamental theory, In
> developing general relativity, Einstein was guided by a principle he had
> inferred from the known properties of gravitation, the principle of the
> equivalence of gravitational forces to intertial effects such as centrifugal
> force.
> 
> The development of the Standard Model was guided by a principle called gauge
> symmetry, a generalization of the well known property of electricity that it
> is only differences of voltages that matter, not voltages themselves.
> 
> But we have not discovered any fundamental principle that governs M-theory.
> The various approximations to this theory look like string or field theories
> in spacetimes of different dimensionalities, but it seems probable that the
> fundamental theory is not to be formulated in spacetime at all.
> 
> Quantum field theory is powerfully constrained by principles concerning the
> nature of four-dimensional spacetime that are incorporated in the special
> theory of relativity.
> 
> How can we get the ideas we need to formulate a truly fundamental theory,
> when this theory is meant to describe a realm where all intuitions derived
> from life in spacetime become inapplicable???
> 
> The other obstacle is that even if we were able to formulate a fundamental
> theory, we might not know how to use it to make previsions of the Standard
> Model have been based on a method of calculation known as perturbation
> theory.
> 
> In quantum mechanics, the rates of physical processes are given by sums over
> alla possible sequences of intermediate steps by which thre process might
> occur.
> 
> Using perturbation theory, one first considers just the simplest
> intermediate steps, then the next simplest, and so on.
> 
> This works only if increasingly complicated intermediate steps make
> decreasingly large contributions to the rate, which is usually the case if
> the forces involved are sufficiently weak.
> 
> Sometimes a theory with very strong forces is equivalent to another theory
> with very weak forces, which can be solved by the  methods of perturbation
> theory, This seems to be true of certain pairs of the five string theories
> in 10 dimension and the field theory in 11 dimensions.
> 
> Unfortunately, the forces of the fundamental theory are probably neither
> very strong nor very weak, ruling out any use of pertubation theory.
> 
> It is impossible to say when these problems will be overcome, They may be
> solved in a preprint put out tomorrow by some young theorist. Theymay not be
> solved by 2060, or even 2200.
> 
> But when they are solved, even though we cannot do experiments at 10^16 GeV
> or look into higher dimensions, we will not have any trouble recognizing the
> truth of the fundamental unified theory.
> 
> The test will be whether the theory successfully accounts for the measured
> values of the physical constants of the Standard Model, along with whatever
> other effects beyond the Standard Model may have been discovered by then.
> 
> It is possible that when we finally understand how particles and forces
> behave at energies up to 10^18 GeV, we will just find new mysteries, with a
> final unification as far away as ever.
> 
> But I doubt it. There no hints of any fundamental energy scale beyond 10^18
> GeV, and string theory even suggest that higher energies have no meaning.
> 
> The discovery of a unified theory that describes nature at all energies will
> put usin a position to answer the deepest questions of cosmology: Did the
> expanding cloud of galaxies we call the bing bang have a beginning at a
> definite time in the past???
> 
> Is our bing bang only one episode in a much larger universein which big and
> little bangs have been going on eternally?????
> 
> If so, do what we call the constants(or even the laws) of nature bary from
> one bang to another?
> 
> This will not be the end of physics. It probably won't even help with some
> of the outstanding problems of today's physics, such as understanding
> turbulence and high-temperature superconductivity.
> 
> But it will mark the end of a certain kind of physics: the search of a
> unified theory that entalis all other facts of physical science.
> 
> bye

I agree, but...

Particle theory says that for every fermion type there is another
fermion type that has exactly the same mass, and therefore no priori
distinction between matter and anti-matter.


Dirac's "Sea of Electrons" was dismissed as implausible for this reason,
but the opposite value of all other charges (quantum numbers), indicates
that the asymmetry between the two classes of particles is due to the
fact that the anti-particle has -rho and negative mass, until it becomes
a real particle.


Vacuum energy density, (rho), is related to pressure by P=-rho, and so
vacuum expansion will be affected by pair production, as the negative
pressure component increases in proportion to the "hole", while the
gradient between the vacuum and matter becomes more severe via the
gravitaionally offset increase in vacuum tension.  The expansion of the
universe will slow down or speed up depending on whether rho-3P is
positive or negative, but if expansion is proportional to pair
production, then rho-3P equals is very close to zero rho, because pair
annihilation attempts to keep up with pair production, as with the
observed case for antimatter annihilation radiation that NASA's Compton
Gamma Ray Observatory discovered in the Milky Way Galaxy.  Omega is
therefore always very near to one.
 
The gradient between the vacuum and ordinary matter becomes more severe
instead when you increase mass-energy while at the same time increasing
-rho with real particle pair production, and so virtual pair production
should also increase with the increase in uncertainty, (dE), that comes
about as a result, and then real pair production increases as well, as
more virtual particles become available.
 
The vacuum expansion rate increases in proportion to the rate of
increase in -rho.

If the above described density parameters hold the value for omega at
around 0.2, then geometrical instability isn't a problem of "flatness",
and this is at least a more realistically plausible explanation for what
has previously hinged on a what was thought to be a precarious and
unlikely balance.  The implication is that tension between matter and
the vacuum will become so great that we will eventually have another big
bang, and the next universe will necessarily be flat as consequence of
the fact that the last one was too, and this carries the constants
forward through time. 

I don't think that a perfect cosmic singularity of infinite density,
energy, and absolute zero volume can exist and still produce an
asymmetric footprint for force decoupling, because it contradicts the
notion of "idealistically pure symmetry"  that it is inherent
asymmetries which lead to all more disordered states for the entire
duration of the rest of the expansion event!  Surely, the imperfections
which produce the constants must necessarily pre-exist at 10^-43.

There is no need for an equally awkward inflationary period to explain
the distance between galaxies on opposite sides of the universe if the
universe already has volume when tension between matter and the vacuum
becomes so great that a big bang occurs, and so the asymmetries which
produce the universal constants are "convolved" inherently forth to a
higher order of the same inclination toward thermal equilibrium, as the
process continues to move ever forward in time, in an impossible effort
to achieve the "pure symmetry" of a perfectly balanced static state,
which is more nearly achieved each time that the universe "evolves" over
the described perpetual thermodynamic process.

Doesn't this also resolve the relationship between quantum forces and
super gravity?

Adios... ;)