So anyway this clip I took from a previous post on, "Who said it?" charts the example I give currently in line with Bee's Backreaction: Turtles all the way up I did not go beyond the introduction, and assume it was not Davies talk. I was cut off at 14 meg while the whole talk is much longer. I'll have to try again tonight(08 sep 2008).
I still have yet to download Davies talk, given the constraints the work schedule limits with regard to the "intranet."
But just reading briefly Dr. Who's position and Markk suggestion that Dr. Who is confusing model with reality.
Bold and italicized were added by me.
The Coleman-Mandula theorem, named after Sidney Coleman and Jeffrey Mandula, is a no-go theorem in theoretical physics. It states that the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincaré group, must be Lorentz scalars.
In other words, every quantum field theory satisfying certain technical assumptions about its S-matrix that has non-trivial interactions can only have a symmetry Lie algebra which is always a direct product of the Poincare group and an internal group if there is a mass gap: no mixing between these two is possible. As the authors say in their introduction, "We prove a new theorem on the impossibility of combining space-time and internal symmetries in any but a trivial way."
First off let me give you an example and you tell me how the idea of any bulk perspective given to graviton understanding will not have it's examples in terms of Lagrangian in space? Serve to help one graduate in terms of gravities when looking at the universe?
Are there no other mechanism that details the Coleman Mandula action other then a multiversity idea in terms of the false vacuum to the true?
I encourage such topological understanding given to a larger format when looking at WMAP of the global perspective. Incidences within the universe give way to a larger depiction of the anomalies generated in perceived examples of monopoles generated in Sean Carroll's group think.
That such concentrations in graviton densities would have an impact on our perceptions in terms of Lagrangian.
If one were to say that any manifold generated at the perception of microscopic views were indicative of a larger topological suggestion in the WMAP, would this then not account for an impression of 10 sup-500-/sup(only written this way because comment section will not allow "sup" html discription)?
Gravities had to be inclusive at all stages and manifold expressions part of this cosmological view?
Valuing Negativity by Mark Trodden
The basic point is that if one assumes that the generators of the internal symmetry group are commuting operators (and that their commutation relations define the group - i.e. that they comprise a Lie algebra), then the only possible total symmetry is a direct product of the space-time symmetries (the PoincarÃ© group) and the internal symmetry group. This is what they meant by trivial in the abstract.
If this had been the end of the story, then bosons and fermions (and therefore force carriers and matter) would be destined to forever remain distinct. But here comes the loophole. The 1975 Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem (after Rudolf Haag, Jan Lopuszanski, and Martin Sohnius) pointed out that if one relaxes one of the assumptions, and allows anticommuting operators as generators of the symmetry group, then there is a possible non-trivial unification of internal and space-time symmetries. Such a symmetry is called supersymmetry and, as you know, constitutes a large part of current research into particle physics.
No-go theorems are fun in physics because they formalize where the important barriers lie and provide guidance about the directions of future attacks on the problem in question. Negative results in general, although not quite as glamorous or exciting, are still great stuff. We should celebrate them. Plus, we don’t want to be like the medical community do we?
Identify the early universe in the QGP perspective needed some way in which to limit reductionism points of view and by incorporating relativity at that level, such an expression then are imparted to a more global manifold detail based on a larger progressive geometry perspective of the universe.
Universe speeding up? From the inside/out this details such a connection in my view.
This was done to verify the statements made in two comments there and to show a comment made at cosmic variance's "Lopsided Universe" were related exactly to the points I am currently making in regard to a point of view shared by Dr. Who and a consequential statement by Markk in terms of the multiverse and bubble nucleations.
Sean Carroll:But if you peer closely, you will see that the bottom one is the lopsided one — the overall contrast (representing temperature fluctuations) is a bit higher on the left than on the right, while in the untilted image at the top they are (statistically) equal. (The lower image exaggerates the claimed effect in the real universe by a factor of two, just to make it easier to see by eye.)See The Lopsided Universe-. Basically the comments I have made in this post by Sean have remained intact although toward the end I think it was thought I might have gone to far?