Showing posts with label Standard model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Standard model. Show all posts

Saturday, November 05, 2011

Reflections on LHC experiments present latest results at Mumbai conference

Just following up on ole news to keep abreast of what is going on with CERN.

LHC experiments present latest results at Mumbai conference

 Geneva, 22 August 2011. Results from the ATLAS and CMS collaborations, presented at the biennial Lepton-Photon conference in Mumbai, India today, show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide. Proving or disproving the existence the Higgs boson, which was postulated in the 1960s as part of a mechanism that would confer mass on fundamental particles, is among the main goals of the LHC scientific programme. ATLAS and CMS have excluded the existence of a Higgs over most of the mass region 145 to 466 GeV with 95 percent certainty.

As well as the Higgs search results, the LHC experiments will be presenting new results across a wide range of physics. Thanks to the outstanding performance of the LHC, the experiments and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, some of the current analyses are based on roughly twice the data sample presented at the last major particle physics conference in July.


The Latest Word on the Higgs from the Mumbai Conference

 Restructured the post: My preliminary discussion is first, the updates from the talks are now at the end.  The take-away message from the LHC talks: Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler-Posted on

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Fermilab experiment discovers a heavy relative of the neutron

Scientists of the CDF collaboration at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced the observation of a new particle, the neutral Xi-sub-b (Ξb0). This particle contains three quarks: a strange quark, an up quark and a bottom quark (s-u-b). While its existence was predicted by the Standard Model, the observation of the neutral Xi-sub-b is significant because it strengthens our understanding of how quarks form matter. Fermilab physicist Pat Lukens, a member of the CDF collaboration, presented the discovery at Fermilab on Wednesday, July 20. See: Fermilab experiment discovers a heavy relative of the neutron
Once produced, the neutral Xi-sub-b (Symbol for Xi-sub-b) particle travels about a millimeter before it disintegrates into two particles: the short-lived, positively charged Xi-sub-c (Symbol Xi-sub-c^+) and a long-lived, negative pion (π-). The Xi-sub-c then promptly decays into a pair of long-lived pions and a Xi particle (Symbol pi^-), which lives long enough to leave a track in the silicon vertex system (SVX) of the CDF detector before it decays a pion and a Lambda (Λ). The Lambda particle, which has no electric charge, can travel several centimeters before decaying into a proton (p) and a pion (π). Credit: CDF collaboration and Fermi


Cosmic rays

The LHC, like other particle accelerators, recreates the natural phenomena of cosmic rays under controlled laboratory conditions, enabling them to be studied in more detail. Cosmic rays are particles produced in outer space, some of which are accelerated to energies far exceeding those of the LHC. The energy and the rate at which they reach the Earth’s atmosphere have been measured in experiments for some 70 years. Over the past billions of years, Nature has already generated on Earth as many collisions as about a million LHC experiments – and the planet still exists. Astronomers observe an enormous number of larger astronomical bodies throughout the Universe, all of which are also struck by cosmic rays. The Universe as a whole conducts more than 10 million million LHC-like experiments per second. The possibility of any dangerous consequences contradicts what astronomers see - stars and galaxies still exist.
Six of the particles in the Standard Model are quarks (shown in purple). Each of the first three columns forms a generation of matter.


What do we already know?

The standard package

The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists over the past century have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything that has been directly observed in the Universe until now has been found to be made from twelve basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these twelve particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particles and forces. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained a host of experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments by many physicists, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Observables of Quantum Gravity

Scientists should be bold. They are expected to think out of the box, and to pursue their ideas until these either trickle down into a new stream, or dry out in the sand. Of course, not everybody can be a genuine “seer”: the progress of science requires few seers and many good soldiers who do the lower-level, dirty work. Even soldiers, however, are expected to put their own creativity in the process now and then -and that is why doing science is appealing even to us mortals.
To Be Bold

One possible way the Higgs boson might be produced at the Large Hadron Collider.

"Observables of Quantum Gravity," is a strange title to me, since we are looking at perspectives that are, how would one say, limited?

Where is such a focus located that we make talk of observables? Can such an abstraction be made then and used here, that we may call it, "mathematics of abstraction" and can arise from a "foundational basis" other then all the standard model distributed in particle attributes?

Observables of Quantum Gravity at the LHC
Sabine Hossenfelder

Perimeter Institute, Ontario, Canada

The search for a satisfying theory that unifies general relativity with quantum field theory is one of the major tasks for physicists in the 21st century. Within the last decade, the phenomenology of quantum gravity and string theory has been examined from various points of view, providing new perspectives and testable predictions. I will give a short introduction into these effective models which allow to extend the standard model and include the expected effects of the underlying fundamental theory. I will talk about models with extra dimensions, models with a minimal length scale and those with a deformation of Lorentz-invariance. The focus is on observable consequences, such as graviton and black hole production, black hole decays, and modifications of standard-model cross-sections.

So while we have created the conditions for an experimental framework, is this what is happening in nature? We are simulating the cosmos in it's interactions, so how is it that we can bring the cosmos down to earth? How is it that we can bring the cosmos down to the level of mind in it's abstractions that we do not just call it a flight of fancy, but of one that arises in mind based on the very foundations on the formation of this universe?

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Turtles All The Way Down

"Turtles all the way down" refers to an infinite regression belief about the nature of the universe (see Cosmology).
For Hawking, the turtle story is one of two accounts of the nature of the universe; he asserts that the turtle theory is patently ridiculous, but admits that his own theories may be just as ridiculous. "Only time will tell," he concludes.

For Geertz, however, the story is patently wise, teaching us that we will never get to the bottom of things.

This comparison also reveals a difference between the positivist and interpretive, or hermeneutic approach to the interpretation of myths. Positivists read myths literally and find them false and foolish; interpretivists read them metaphorically or allegorically and find them true and profound.

The phrase "turtles all the way down", or sometimes simply "a turtle problem" are often used to describe other infinite regressions. For instance, the question of "who polices the police" may be regarded as a turtle problem.

There is a question looming on my mind abut what reality is? There is the idea of the "infinite regress" of all particle reductions as we venture to "what may be" the first cause?

It is not necessary for me to hold any views of religious intent here other then to say that any person is quite capable of acting as the student and placing in front of them what the answer to that question of reality is. Then it becomes to them what they have satisfied what reality had explained.

Now this is not easy for me to answer such a question, and think about what had come before? In terms of those who asked this same question of the self, and what it may mean to you. Who am I. What makes "you" who you are?

So is it subjective that first cause may have something in association with the cosmology at large, in this question as to how the universe came into being, or is it a redundant feature to ask such a question and just accept what is?

Perspective on the past. Quasar spectra recorded at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii imply that a fundamental physical constant may have been increasing slightly over the past six billion years.

If we are "not aware" does the universe end? Do the fundamental laws of science not exist because you do not exist?

While I do not have time to complete this post I am going to add to it because there are concepts that are very appealing here in our investigations that serve to be looked at. I do not contest any fundamental constant here, other then to look at them as comparative features of our association with the natural world.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

First Stars Behind the Scene

There are several recognized processes from the early universe that leave relic effects setting the stage for galaxy formation and evolution. We deal here with the first generarion of stars, primordial nucleosynthesis, the epoch of recombination, and the thermal history of various cosmic backgrounds.

Part of understanding the time line is first knowing where the Pregalactic Universe exists in that time line.

So given the standard information one would have to postulate something different then what is currently classified?

A new Type III (what ever one shall attribute this to definition), versus Type I, Type IIa?

The idea is to place the distant measure in relation to what is assumed of TYPE I, TypeIIa. It assumes all these things, but has to been defined further, to be a Type III. That's the point of setting the values of where this measure can be taken from.

I wrote someplace else the thought generated above. It is nice that the world of scientists are not so arrogant in some places, while some have been willing to allow the speculation to continue. Even amidst their understanding, that I was less then the scientist that they are, yet recognizing, I am deeply motivated to understanding this strange world of cosmology and it's physics.

When I wrote this title above I was actually thinking of two scenarios that are challenging the way I am seeing it.

Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team
WMAP has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe. Colors indicate "warmer" (red) and "cooler" (blue) spots. The white bars show the "polarization" direction of the oldest light. This new information helps to pinpoint when the first stars formed and provides new clues about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe.

First of these, was in terms of the time line and what we know of the WMAP demonstration given to us of that early universe. I of course inject some of what I know by past research to help the general public understand what is being demonstrated from another perspective.

This is what happens as you move through different scientists(Wayne Hu) thoughts to see the world in the way they may see it. This concept can be quite revealing sometimes giving a profound effect to moving the mind to consider the universe in new ways.

"Lagrangian views" in relation may have been one result that comes quickly to my mind. Taking that chaldni plate and applying it to the universe today.

Even though in the context of this post, we may see the universe in a "simple experiment" not just demonstrating the "early universe," but the universe in it's "gravitational effect" from that evolution to matter defined now.

The Time Line

Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team
The expansion of the universe over most of its history has been relatively gradual. The notion that a rapid period "inflation" preceded the Big Bang expansion was first put forth 25 years ago. The new WMAP observations favor specific inflation scenarios over other long held ideas.

Looking to the "far left" of the image we see the place where the cosmic background is being demonstrated, while to the "far right" we see the satellite which has helped measure what we know of the early universe. So this "distant measure" has allowed us to understand what is behind the scene of what we know of cosmology today of events, galaxies and such.

Second, what comes to mind is the Massive Blue Star of 100 Solar masses that would have been further out in terms of the billions of years that we may of sought in terms of our measures. So this would be of value I would assume in relation to model perspective and measures?

So the distance measure has been defined then by understanding the location of the cosmic background and the place where the Blue giants will have unfolded in their demise, to the creation of blackholes.

The processes in the Universe after the Big Bang. The radio waves are much older than the light of galaxies. From the distortion of the images (curved lines) - caused by the gravitation of material between us and the light sources - it is possible to calculate and map the entire foreground mass.Image: Max Planck Institute of Astrophysics
We don't have to wait for the giant telescope to get unparalleled results from this technique, however. One of the most pressing issues in current physics is to gain a better understanding of the mysterious Dark Energy which currently drives the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Metcalf and White show that mass maps of a large fraction of the sky made with an instrument like SKA could measure the properties of Dark Energy more precisely than any previously suggested method, more than 10 times as accurately as mass maps of similar size based on gravitational distortions of the optical images of galaxies.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The Geometrics Behind the Supernova and it's History

It is not always easy for people to see what lies behind the wonderful beauty of images that we take from the satellite measures of space, and it's dynamical events illustrated in Cassiopeia A. There before you is this majestic image of beauty, as we wonder about it's dynamics.

These Spitzer Space Telescope images, taken one year apart, show the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A (yellow ball) and surrounding clouds of dust (reddish orange). The pictures illustrate that a blast of light from Cassiopeia A is waltzing outward through the dusty skies. This dance, called an "infrared echo," began when the remnant erupted about 50 years ago. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Ariz.
An enormous light echo etched in the sky by a fitful dead star was spotted by the infrared eyes of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

The surprising finding indicates Cassiopeia A, the remnant of a star that died in a supernova explosion 325 years ago, is not resting peacefully. Instead, this dead star likely shot out at least one burst of energy as recently as 50 years ago.

How is it such information arrives to us, and we would have to consider the impulse's behind such geometrical explanations. Which we are lucky to see in other ways. So, of course we needed to see the impulse as dynamically driven by the geometrical inclinations of that collapse, and all it's information spread outward by the description in images painted.

Credit: Weiqun Zhang and Stan Woosley
This image is from a computer simulation of the beginning of a gamma-ray burst. Here we see the jet 9 seconds after its creation at the center of a Wolf Rayet star by the newly formed, accreting black hole within. The jet is now just erupting through the surface of the Wolf Rayet star, which has a radius comparable to that of the sun. Blue represents regions of low mass concentration, red is denser, and yellow denser still. Note the blue and red striations behind the head of the jet. These are bounded by internal shocks.

If I had approached you early on and suggested that you look at "bubble geometrodynamics" would it have seemed so real that I would have presented a experiment to you, that would help "by analogies" to see what is happening? Might I then be called the one spreading such information that it was not of value to scientists to consider, that I was seeing in ways that I can only now give to you as example? What science has done so far with using the physics with cosmological views?

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI/CXC/SAO
This stunning false-color picture shows off the many sides of the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A, which is made up of images taken by three of NASA's Great Observatories, using three different wavebands of light. Infrared data from the Spitzer Space Telescope are colored red; visible data from the Hubble Space Telescope are yellow; and X-ray data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory are green and blue.

Located 10,000 light-years away in the northern constellation Cassiopeia, Cassiopeia A is the remnant of a once massive star that died in a violent supernova explosion 325 years ago. It consists of a dead star, called a neutron star, and a surrounding shell of material that was blasted off as the star died. The neutron star can be seen in the Chandra data as a sharp turquoise dot in the center of the shimmering shell.

In this image above we learn of what manifests in "jet production lines," and such examples are beautiful examples to me of what the geometrics are doing. You needed some way to be able to explain this within context of the universe's incidences "as events." We say this action is one with which we may speak to this "corner of the universe." Yet it is very dynamical in it's expression as we see it multiplied from various perspectives.

The structure of Model J32 as the jet nears the surface 7820 seconds after core collapse.

So by experiment(?) I saw such relations, but what use such analogies if they are laid waste to speculation that what was initiated such ideas had been the inclination of geometrics detailed as underlying the basis of all expression as an example of some non euclidean views of Riemann perspectives leading shapes and dynamics of our universe by comparison within the local actions of stars and galaxies?

Gamma Rays?

So we get this information in one way or another and it was from such geometrical impulse that such examples are spread throughout the universe in ways that were not understood to well.

X-ray image of the gamma-ray burst GRB 060614 taken by the XRT instrument on Swift. The burst glowed in X-ray light for more than a week following the gamma-ray burst. This so-called "afterglow" gave an accurate position of the burst on the sky and enabled the deep optical observations made by ground-based observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: NASA/Swift Team
A year ago scientists thought they had figured out the nature of gamma-ray bursts. They signal the birth of black holes and traditionally, fall into one of two categories: long or short. A newly discovered hybrid burst has properties of both known classes of gamma-ray bursts yet possesses features that remain unexplained.

The long bursts are those that last more than two seconds. It is believed that they are ejected by massive stars at the furthest edge of the universe as they collapse to form black holes.

So looking back to this timeline it is important to locate the ideas spread out before us. Have "some place" inclusive in the reality of that distance from the origins of the stars of our earliest times. 13.7 billions years imagine!

Fig. 1: Sketchy supernova classification scheme
A supernova is the most luminous event known. Its luminosity matches those of whole galaxies. The name derives from the works of Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky who studied supernovae intensively in the early 1930s and used the term supernova therein.
Nowadays supernova is a collective term for different classes of objects, that exhibit a sudden rise in luminosity that drops again on a timescale of weeks.
Those objects are subdivided into two classes, supernovae of type I or II (SNe I and SNe II). The distinguishing feature is the absence or the presence of spectral lines of hydrogen. SNe I show no such lines as SNe II do. The class of SNe I is further subdivided in the classes a, b and c. This time the distinguishing feature are spectral features of helium and silicon. SN Ia show silicon features, SN Ib show helium but no silicon features and SN Ic show both no silicon and no helium spectral features.
The class of SN II is further subdivided in two classes. Those are distinguished by the decline of the lightcurve. Those SN II that show a linear decline are named SN II-L and those that pass through a plateau-phase are referred to as SN II-P.

So given the standard information one would have to postulate something different then what is currently classified?

A new Type III (what ever one shall attribute this to definition, versus Type I, Type IIa?

ssc2006-22b: Brief History of the Universe
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/A. Kashlinsky (GSFC)
This artist's timeline chronicles the history of the universe, from its explosive beginning to its mature, present-day state.

Our universe began in a tremendous explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago (left side of strip). Observations by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer and Wilkinson Anisotropy Microwave Probe revealed microwave light from this very early epoch, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, providing strong evidence that our universe did blast into existence. Results from the Cosmic Background Explorer were honored with the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics.

A period of darkness ensued, until about a few hundred million years later, when the first objects flooded the universe with light. This first light is believed to have been captured in data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The light detected by Spitzer would have originated as visible and ultraviolet light, then stretched, or redshifted, to lower-energy infrared wavelengths during its long voyage to reach us across expanding space. The light detected by the Cosmic Background Explorer and the Wilkinson Anisotropy Microwave Probe from our very young universe traveled farther to reach us, and stretched to even lower-energy microwave wavelengths.

Astronomers do not know if the very first objects were either stars or quasars. The first stars, called Population III stars (our star is a Population I star), were much bigger and brighter than any in our nearby universe, with masses about 1,000 times that of our sun. These stars first grouped together into mini-galaxies. By about a few billion years after the Big Bang, the mini-galaxies had merged to form mature galaxies, including spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way. The first quasars ultimately became the centers of powerful galaxies that are more common in the distant universe.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has captured stunning pictures of earlier galaxies, as far back as ten billion light-years away.

Would sort of set up the challenge?

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Result of Effective Changes in the Cosmos

"There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap. The important thing is not to stop questioning." Albert Einstein (1879- 1955)

But the presence of an event horizon implies a finite Hawking temperature and the conditions for defining the S Matrix cannot be fulfilled. This lack of an S Matrix is a formal mathematical problem not only in string theory but also in particle theories.

One recent attempt to address this problem invokes quantum geometry and a varying speed of light. This remains, as they say, an active area of research. But most experts doubt that anything so radical is required.

What processes would allow you to see "faster then light entities" being shown as examples of that "cross over point?" That's part of the fun isn't it when you realize what some experiments are actually checking for? :)

So yes of course, you might think about "Cerenkov radiation" and from this, what is happening in today's world, that allows us lay people, never having seen or understood, but may now do so?

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is a collaborative effort among physicists from Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. Using 1,000 tons of so-called heavy water and almost 10,000 photon detectors, they measure the flux, energy, and direction of solar neutrinos, which originate in the sun. SNO, located 6,800 feet underground in an active Ontario nickel mine, can also detect the other two types of neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. In 2001, just two years after the observatory opened, physicists at SNO solved the 30-year-old mystery of the "missing solar neutrinos." They found that the answer lies not with the sun—where many physicists had suspected that solar neutrinos undergo changes—but with the journey they take from the core of the sun to the Earth.

In the previous article I mention the "cross over point in LHC" and from this, the idea was born in mind, how the universe and the effectives rates of expansion could take place?

While it is a long shot, I thought since of layman status, what could it hurt but to speculate and see what thoughts further arise from this. Like any model perspective adopted, allows new thinking to emerge, where previously, none existed for me. So one tends to try and go with the flow and see where it ends up. At least that's what I do and now, others do too?

Blackhole Production in the Cosmos

Increase, in high energy collisions taking place, allows speed up of inflation?

So here is the jest of what allowed me to say that the effective rates of exchange in the cosmos had to have the physics related to show the reasons why the effective speed up of inflation has been detected.

Adapted from Dienes et al., Nuclear Physics B
Some theorists envision the universe as multidimensional space-time embedding a membranous entity, called a brane, also of multiple dimensions. Diagram depicts familiar 3-dimensional space (time not shown) as a vertical line. At every point along line, one extra dimension curls around with a radius (r) of no more that about 10–19 meter. Perpendicular to every point of the brane extends the bulk, another extra dimension.

Also I will give the idea of "photo/graviton association" and how "graviton in a can" allows perspective about the "effective field variations" that "may be" predicted in the vacuum as it produces new physics to emerge on the other side? Quite a mouthful I know.

The graviton is the quantum force carrier of gravity. In conventional quantum field theory, graviton processes with loops do not make sense because of incurable divergencies.

The idea then here is to understand the graviton production in particle collisions here produce some interesting "phenomena" as we see faster then light entities move beyond the confines of that "graviton in a can." So you get the jest then, that even if the boundary conditions are experimentally being tested here, the production of gravitons is very high.

So what allows faster then light entities to move beyond these confines if you did not understand the connection to the "perfect fluid" and the anomalistic nature this perfect fluid has for allowing such traversing beyond the standard model?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

The Higg's Boson and Memory?

While some like chocolate bars and the bubble nature of candy, some also like the molasses and ice cream? :)

If Plato Had thought "the new born" was not really such a "blank slate" then what did he mean exactly? If we could remember, "in what form" would these memories have manifested?

The origins of thought would have found that what existed before, had to make it's way into what we are doing today? So is it really "lost" since we cannot and do not remember what was before? Or, is it possible to remember?

Not many can see in this abstract way, or have considered how a photon might have traveled? Sure they have understood satellites and the travel through space, but have they consider this in context of CSL lensing? Sean put up a link yesterday that had me seeing how such a travel over distance might have had some photon's strange journies in context of such lensings.

So how does this lump of clay ever take with it all that was before. Is it just a slight shift in our tonal? What was "not apparent before" is now very much a a part of our views of nature now. Before, it was "very pleasing," and now, it is "still very pleasing" that our cosmological views have been extended some how? :)

Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

Of course we always look for directions as to which way we'll have to look for things to understand just what our perceptions reveal and what is the basis for our thoughts as to the nature of the universe?

For example, theory says that Higgs particles are matter particles, but in most respects the Higgs behaves more like a new force than like a particle. How can this be? In truth, the Higgs is neither matter nor force; the Higgs is just different.

So it is never easy for me to follow from one thought to the next.

Imagine, the "molasses" here for a minute. What gives mass it's shape while we cannot discern the very beginning as an asymmetrical valuation? Based on the notion, that there was a simpler time entropically, how do we know what is discretely measured?

Why the discrete measure and it's shape?

New measurements of top quark mass at Fermilab have revised estimates for the mass of the Higgs boson.
Scientists believe that the Higgs boson, named for Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, who first theorized its existence in 1964, is responsible for particle mass, the amount of matter in a particle. According to the theory, a particle acquires mass through its interaction with the Higgs field, which is believed to pervade all of space and has been compared to molasses that sticks to any particle rolling through it. The Higgs field would be carried by Higgs bosons, just as the electromagnetic field is carried by photons.

"In the Standard Model, the Higgs boson mass is correlated with top quark mass," says Madaras, "so an improved measurement of the top quark mass gives more information about the possible value of the Higgs boson mass."

According to the Standard Model, at the beginning of the universe there were six different types of quarks. Top quarks exist only for an instant before decaying into a bottom quark and a W boson, which means those created at the birth of the universe are long gone. However, at Fermilab's Tevatron, the most powerful collider in the world, collisions between billions of protons and antiprotons yield an occasional top quark. Despite their brief appearances, these top quarks can be detected and characterized by the D-Zero and CDF experiments.

So yes there are these experiments that lead us to think about how the universe came into being? All these things that we see in the universe, are they so very different from every other point in space. How is it's particle nature revealed and we have gained much from discerning the quantum dynamically nature of what, "just is."

What just "is?"

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

I mean it's vague to me that such a memory could have been transferred to other things. The Universe has become very large, and entropically complex? Our universe of discrete things, have become complex in discretized values. How would we have ever seen the "purity of thought manifest" if we did not delve ever deeper into the nature of things?

In 2000 the same analogy was used to establish the robustness of the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations in inflationary models. This analogy is currently stimulating research for experimenting Hawking radiation. Finally it could also be a useful guide for going beyond the semi-classical description of black hole evaporation.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Doppelgänger Favors Oscillate

"Observations always involve theory."Edwin Hubble

Of course I relate the "Ghost Particle to Pauli" here so that people would recognize the faint discerning image in "mirror world," as some calculation that paved the way for some future spoken from Feynman's point of view, to John Bahcall. Imagine what began as a theory/concept/idea, could have brought on this whole subject of neutrinos.

Of course here I could relate the story of "Alice in Wonderland" and Ivars Peterson may have some thoguhts on this as well. About fantasy, and what a good mathematcian should have in her/his arsenal for future prospects which will manifest as Nikolai Lobachevsky relates in quote below.

So the idea here is of course that we are looking at the neutrinos as a mechanism responsible for the matter/anti-matter asymmetry. But hold this thought while we continue through here at the unimaginable, to the manageable in testing theory.

There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.Nikolai Lobachevsky

I couldn't help but think of the new TV series "Heroes" that is now playing. Of course there are intriguing ideas here about time travel, regeneration, and what do you know, the "Doppelgänger," of mirror world.

Niki Sanders, a 33-year-old Las Vegas showgirl who can do incredible things with mirrors

Well under that pretense the idea is one of the dark side being show in mirror world, while the unconsicous stae of mind is somehow dropped in place of it's dark resurgence? How do you ever calculate something like that? Imagine, "Angels and Demons" as some sphere related by Escher as the revolving sphere of understanding?

All M.C. Escher works (c) 2001 Cordon Art BV - Baarn - the Netherlands. All rights reserved.

A doppelgänger (pronunciation (help·info)) is the ghostly double of a living person. The word doppelgänger is a loanword from German, written there (as any noun) with an initial capital letter Doppelgänger, composed from doppel, meaning "double", and gänger, as "walker". In English, the word is conventionally not capitalized, and it is also common to drop the German diacritic umlaut on the letter "a" and write "doppelganger", although the correct spelling without umlaut would be "doppelgaenger".

Right Handed Neutrino

Anyway there is this idea/concept/theory that refers to the combining gravity with the other forces. They call this supersymmetry. This requires that each particle to have a supermassive shadow particle?

Like many detectors, this experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator in Batavia, Illinois investigates the oscillation of neutrinos from one type to another. Since 2003, it has observed neutrinos created from protons in Fermilab's particle booster, part of the system that the lab normally employs to accelerate protons to higher energies for other experiments. MiniBooNE is a 40-foot-in-diameter spherical steel tank filled with 800 tons of mineral oil and lined with 1,280 phototubes (some of which are being adjusted in this image) that produce a flash of light when charged particles travel through them. Analyses of these light flashes are already providing tantalizing information

So if the assumption is that the "sterile neutrino" could roam in higher dimensions being undetected by us, and make it's presence felt through the influence of gravity, what does this say about grvaity currently measure at this time in the universe?

Might it mean that when only measuring high energy collidial events, that we have within the presence of the cosmo, also the the effect of weak grvaitation measures allotted to the sterile neutino, then what does this say to us about the extension of the standard model as new physics?

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

BooNE will determine the oscillation parameters and possibly yield further information about the mass of a neutrino

  • The Right Spin for a Neutrino Superfluid
  • Monday, October 02, 2006

    The Periodic Table of the Moon's Strata

    Clementine color ratio composite image of Aristarchus Crater on the Moon. This 42 km diameter crater is located on the corner of the Aristarchus plateau, at 24 N, 47 W. Ejecta from the plateau is visible as the blue material at the upper left (northwest), while material excavated from the Oceanus Procellarum area is the reddish color to the lower right (southeast). The colors in this image can be used to ascertain compositional properties of the materials making up the deep strata of these two regions. (Clementine, USGS slide 11)
    Clementine gravity experiment used measurements of perturbations in the motion of the spacecraft to infer the lunar gravity field

    Like Grace, I choose to build an understanding of the gravity fields.

    S-Band Transponder Doppler Gravity Experiment

    The gravity experiment used measurements of perturbations in the motion of the spacecraft to infer the lunar gravity field. Clementine was equipped with an S-band microwave transponder and 2 S-band omni-directional high-rate antennas which were used for tracking by the NRL tracking station in Pomonkey, MD, and the NASA Deep Space Network. The frequency of the S-band transmission was measured every 10 sec, and the Doppler shift would give the relative velocity of the spacecraft towards or away from the Earth. Accelerations were calculated from changes in the velocity, and after accounting for the orbit, relative motions of Earth and moon, and Earth and solar gravity, these accelerations are converted to lunar gravity effects on the spacecraft.
    The calculated lunar gravity field can be used to model subsurface lunar structure. The Pomonkey station could measure the velocity to an accuracy of 3 mm/sec, while the Deep Space Network stations could achieve about 0.3 mm/sec. Tracking was not possible on most of the lunar far side (120° to 240° long, -45° to 45° lat), when the moon was between the spacecraft and the Earth. In all, over 361,000 observations were made, approximately 57,000 at less than 1000 km altitude.

    As our physical interpretation of this lovely pearl(earth) we live on has changed in the conceptual views of "times clocks and such," it became evident in GRACE that the world was quite different then what was first view from space in triumph.

    As you might well know, all matter in the universe consists of small particles called atoms and each atom contains electrons that circle around a nucleus. This is how the world is made.
    If one places an atom (or a large piece of a matter containing billions and billions of atoms) in a magnetic field, electrons doing their circles inside do not like this very much. They alter their motion in such a way as to oppose this external influence.

    Incidentally, this is the most general principle of Nature: whenever one tries to change something settled and quiet, the reaction is always negative (you can easily check out that this principle also applies to the interaction between you and your parents). So, according to this principle, the disturbed electrons create their own magnetic field and as a result the atoms behave as little magnetic needles pointing in the direction opposite to the applied field*.

    But of course may I infer "floating ships" over mineral deposits that were conducive to transportation in regards to the superconductors, floating frogs and such? An "attenuator of a kind" for the strength's and weaknesses of such composite gatherings?

    But anyway before this "energy is considered in it's matter formed," how did such asymmetrical breaking from the origins not have ocnsidered such constitutions built on the very matters of the moon or such, in it's construction? In the end the gravity field is worth what?

    At SLAC and elsewhere in the 1990s, precision measurements probing quantum effects from physics at higher energy scales were very successful. Precision electroweak measurements accurately predicted the mass of the top quark before it was discovered at the Tevatron at Fermilab, and they were cited in the awarding of the 1999 Nobel Prize to Veltmann and t'Hooft, which recognized their work in developing powerful mathematical tools for calculating quantum corrections and demonstrating that the Standard Model was a renormalizable theory. The discovery and mass measurement of the top quark at Fermilab's Tevatron and the precise Z0 boson mass measurement from CERN experiments added to well established values for other Standard Model parameters, to allow predictions for the only Standard Model parameter not yet measured, the Higgs mass.

    What is a coupling constant? This is some number that tells us how strong an interaction is. Newton's constant GN, which appears in both Newton's law of gravity and the Einstein equation, is the coupling constant for gravitational interactions. For electromagnetism, the coupling constant is related to the electric charge through the fine structure constant a

    While the idea in my mind is "the extension of all elements demonstrated in some way arising from the standard model, what said that "this element or that" could not have been created from a oscillatory expression of the big bang, and the particles that issue forth, are not without some geometrical expression as "inhernet structures" of that table?

    As a "resonantial value" of a point along the length of the string?

    Dr. Timmothy Stowe's physicists periodic table

    So you see, I had a vision about the future. A time when I will work in space deploying satellites. But what said that future would not ascertain the requirements when our fossil fuels will have to be disregarded? Change the way the planets inhabitants will look forward to the benefits of such conceptual changes?

    So this is a fictional posting then, about that future.

    CP Violation

    The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean. Bernhard Riemann

    ON a macroscale the blackhole is a understanding of when we investigate curvature parameters with regards to the nature of our universe in spacetime. We understand this right?

    What are the "entropic valuations" being recognized as we look to a earlier time of when the QGP existed and then such manifestaion in the "matters states" have exemplified such characteristics as?

    Both space and spacetime can either be curved or flat.

    I am going to give you a quick summation of what GR is. It is about "Gravity." Now if you hold that in mind you should not loose any time with what I am telling you.

    Now, how is it that we can see the dynamcial nature of the universe, yet, we would not consider the effect of the presence of microstate blackholes in regards to such gatherings in the space, of what we call "spacetime?" What would "such gatherings" show of itself?

    A circle of radius r has a curvature of size 1/r. Therefore, small circles have large curvature and large circles have small curvature. The curvature of a line is 0. In general, an object with zero curvature is "flat."

    Think about the "circle" and it's 2D view of what the blackhole is doing in 3D +time in context of many blackholes. I always refer to "one" so you can see the comparative view that I am having little success in transferring to you, in what I am seeing.

    The curvature parameters are closely associated to the thermodynamic realizations. This is importnat not only on a cosmological level, but on a microstate as well.

    Lubos explains that here.

    There are lots of other examples what you can do to increase the number of black holes. Change the couplings so that the stars burn their fuel faster, and they will collapse into black hole faster. Reduce the gap between the Planck scale and the QCD scale, and nuclear collisions will be more likely to end up as black holes.

    It is quite obvious that the change of virtually any parameter of the Standard Model (plus inflation) in the right direction (one of the two directions) will result in an increase of the number of black holes. How can you doubt such a trivial thing?

    So there is something about the nature of our universe and the balance that it seeks to maintain of itself? Here we are, looking at events within the cosmo and "secular views of it's manfiestation" different then other locations within the universe. Yet not apart from it, or not indifferent to it's nature to be part of a larger picture?

    Silicon Vertex Tracker. The SVT is the heart of the BABAR experiment at SLAC—in the photo, physicists are putting the finishing touches on improvements to the detector. (Photo Courtesy of Peter Ginter)
    SLAC's BaBar collaboration has discovered that CP violation—an asymmetry between the behavior of matter and antimatter—exists even in a very rare class of particle decays. This result offers the most sensitive avenue yet for exploring matter-antimatter asymmetries, with implications for the future understanding of physics beyond the Standard Model.

    "BaBar has proven to be a fantastic instrument for exploring the origins of matter-antimatter asymmetries, allowing us to probe with exquisite precision very rare processes related to how the early universe came to be matter dominated," said David MacFarlane, BaBar Spokesperson and Professor at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

    So here we are having been given the example of CP violation above and here?

    How is it that anything could be asymmetrical? :) So you introduce anti-matter and matter?

    (ambigram courtesy John Langdon)
    If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

    As a observer Einstein made it clear that the observable universe has ideas attached to it. The "Pretty girl and the hot stove analogy" was compelling to those of us who recognized the values we may attach to life. "The Gravity of the situation?" How narrow our view of the world is when we feel the world is lost?

    But the hope and inspiration is, that the world has a bright future when we undertsand the implications of our views. Our involvement in the "toposense of reality? We are "part and parcel" of it?

    So, should we talk about the components of Heaven and Hell( my philosophical discourse on the nature of consciousness?)? You have to understand the picture and the dynamical nature this universe can say about it's entropic valuation?

    While I may have understood Omega, it didn't come to the nature it is by not including a geomtrical perspective about the nature of that same universe.

    That's my point. It had to arise from a earlier time and the manifestation is the matter states we are defining in correlation to the entropic valuations.

    While you see these as macro-characteristics and the relation to blackhole in 3d+time, the result is, a explanation of matter states in "macrostylistic beauty" we see in the events of the cosmo.

    If such inclinations to drive the energy to a ever smaller defined circle, as it gets smaller "the difference is" not so indiscernable that the events of the "particle showers" created are matter states that arise form the energy that was used.

    You see?:)

    The Ceiling

    The deeper implications of such a thought from perspective is focused upward? Yet such perspective can be made from other positions? So some minds were flexible? Others, were just engineers? ;)

    Understanding other worlds came naturally to him. Perhaps it was an inevitable consequence of being the child of Japanese Americans. His parents, though born in California, spent World War II behind barbed wire, guarded by people with machine guns: incarcerated by their own country as enemy aliens. Afterwards his father worked as a gardener, his mother a maid: two of the few jobs that were available to Japanese Americans. Kaku grew up poor, but one of the family treats was to visit the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. It turned out to be the place of a childhood epiphany. Wondering in the way that only a child does, Kaku looked at the carp swimming in a weedy pond and imagined how they would not be able to conceive of other worlds. "A carp engineer would believe that was all there is; but a carp physicist would see the ripples on the surface and start thinking about unseen dimensions," Kaku told me, laying the first of many lashes on his token engineer.

    The "ceiling" is the perspective of the carp, not the perspective of the "carp physicist."


  • Liminocentric Structures: Which Circle do you Belong Too?-Sunday, July 10, 2005

  • Ps: Some updates are curvature given for perspective. Think of a string, and any point on that string. What does the energy value of "that point" tell you in regards to the circle? The point on that string. It's just a way of looking at the string and the resonantial value assign along the string's length?

    Saturday, September 30, 2006

    Are Strangelets Natural?

    Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

    It is important that you look at the date of this article following, and what has subsequently arisen from "then to now." The title of this post asked a legitimate question and it was answered in response to the disaster scenario's presented to the LHC "recenty?" Check the date on it? Not so recent?

    Discovering this raised the conclusiveness about what was comparative to the cosmic ray collisions. This lead us to believe, the microscopic blackhole creation was safe. Becuase it happened all the time in the space above us. Just as we may see the aurora borealis in our observation in the interaction with the sun, so too, in cosmic particle collisions in ways beyond the standard model.

    So looking back?

    SCIENTISTS ARE OFTEN ACCUSED of trying to play God. But obviously they can't really mimic the feats of the putative Creator of the Universe, and make a universe in the laboratory. Or can they? Before you snort in disbelief, you should know that some serious cosmologists have considered the idea. Indeed, one of them has already had a shot at creating a universe--albeit inside a computer. The idea dates back to the late 1970s, when Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University, and Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology separately came up with the concept of "inflation". According to this idea, an incredibly short, violent burst of expansion occurred around 10-32 seconds after the birth of the Universe. Propelled by concentrated vacuum energy, inflation boosted the size of the Universe from one billionth the width of a proton to the size of a grapefruit. That's what the theorists claim, but showing that inflation really did take place like this is hard... unless, of course, someone can recreate the right conditions in the lab and watch what happens. Linde and his colleagues have already done a dry run on a computer. "Setting up the simulations was hard work, and only on the seventh day did we finish the first series," he reported in Scientific American in 1994, adding in Strangelovian terms: "We looked at the shining screen, and we were happy--we saw that the universe was good!" This isn't enough for Linde: he wants to do it for real. But theory suggests that matter has to be squeezed to densities similar to those in the primordial Universe before such fields appear. No-one has the faintest clue how to create such densities, yet. Linde is sanguine about the dangers involved, if it ever becomes possible. "You can think of our Universe as being like a smooth surface, with one part of it inflating like a balloon. The new universe will be connected to ours by just a tiny passage--what we call a wormhole--the size of a subatomic particle." Quite how we'd know we'd succeeded isn't obvious, but at least there seems little danger of someone tumbling into the new universe by mistake, or anything nasty getting out.

    THis one post includes "lots of link"s from the accumulation of my thinkng as a layman. I had gathered these as they unfolded, to help me understand what was introduced to me some time ago by Paul on the question in regards to the "Disaster Scenario at LHC."

    Now in regards to "new physics" one needed to see what would come out of such collisions that would be produced, so one had to indeed follow that thinking which I did. How far from the truth of it was what was generated in the public eye distant from what was published by the reputable scientists?

    Well you would have to judge for yourself, and "my excuse," well it has been provided for me, so one can say as a layman I am really distant from the current thinking.

    So yes before Cosmic Variance and the disaster scenario, it was in our conversations that "Mooreglade of forum" introduced the article of "A Blackhole Ate My Planet" which lead too "Fate of our Planet"

    So you see, between then and now, I was able to construct accordingly as I was exposed to the information in regards to "both ways" to which Lubos implies in that statement in comment link?

    Okay. Now the stage has been set.

    What has been Lubos been saying?

    That the connection in "B's question" again sets the stage for further thoughts?

    That's just the way of it and who better then student who will make way for further insights, whether it be "Lubos or B?"

    In the past my mistake was made to "mirror" Lubos with Peter Woit, because I needed to see what the others may offer in regards to the positions they adopted. Or, another example would have been Smolin and Susskind, who bounced off each other. Or, Gell-mann or Feynman. Or maybe even Plato and Aristotle shhown in the picturte at the top of this Blog?

    IN the above case with Peter Woit, I did not learn much? The counter arguments as to why strings were failing in the road to experimental validation(sure we were preoccupied with it's validity then), and how this message was being put out there.

    Be sure that more senior people agree with me that it is trivial to falsify that conjecture, including Susskind, Vilenkin, Banks, and others who have looked into it.

    So where are we today in regard to strings? Lubo's reference to Banks, Vilenkin, and Susskind already asking these questions is a significant pointer to what has already transpired, and what days, weeks, years, have passed before we see this statement today?

    You see how this is done?

    Sunday, September 10, 2006

    Window on the Universe

    Michio Kaku:
    I like to compare it to wandering in the desert, and stumbling over a tiny pebble. When we push away the sand, we find that this "pebble" is actually the tip of a gargantuan pyramid. After years of excavation, we find wondrous hieroglyphics, strange tunnels and secret passageways. Every time we think we are at the bottom stage, we find a stage below it. Finally, we think we are at the very bottom, and can see the doorway.

    One day, some bright, enterprising physicist, perhaps inspired by this article, will complete the theory, open the doorway, and use the power of pure thought to determine if string theory is a theory of everything, anything, or nothing.

    Only time will tell if Einstein was correct when he said, "But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

    An Intermediate Polar Binary System. Credit & Copyright: Mark Garlick

    Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restrictied to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen.

    Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin

    Now you have to understand something here that the views of those who push our perceptions have gone even further then this, in how we look at the universe. I am showing you work that was progressing from understanding and bringing together what was going on then in 2004, to show you indeed that such an progression has taken place.

    I also point out where "Conformal Field Theory" has planted itself, as we look at the images of Bekenstein bound. Such determinations and the roads taken by Strominger point specifically to what we can measure and what we have yet to measure. This did nt relegate any theoretcial view to the "garbage dump" but allowed visionaries to see beyond the SUN/Earth relation in Lagrangian views.

    ISCAP will demonstratively help you "adjust your view" in a cosmological re-adjustment that is necessary. Not only from Glast views that arose from some fantasy, but culminates today in the use of a scientific device(calorimeter) for such measures.

    In Gamma Ray detection and the Early Universe I point the direction in how Glast in it's preparation has given us new views on how we look at the universe.

    Dust torus around a supermassive black hole
    The Astrophysical Journal, in an article titled "Integral IBIS Extragalactic survey: Active Galactic Nuclei Selected at 20-100 keV", by L. Bassani et al., published on 10 January 2006 (vol. 636, pp L65-L68).

    Meanwhile, the NASA team is now planning to extend his search for hidden black holes further out into the universe. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. In a few more months we will have a larger survey completed with the Swift mission. Our goal is to push this kind of observation deeper and deeper into the universe to see black hole activity at early epochs. That’s the next great challenge for X-ray and gamma-ray astronomers," concluded Beckmann.

    Sun Earth Relation

    Part of devloping this vision was to see in ways that the Grace satelitte allowed you to see. In what use "climate functions were happening" within the earth's atmosphere how it was being regarded. Time clock functiosn are necessary views, even within this context and such mapping allowed you to see th eearth as it had never been seen before.

    No longer is it the surprize of the "first man to step out in space" to see such a blue marble and be aw struck by it's beauty. Now we have progressed in the same views that I allude too beyound what glast has done. Glast is your measure for now. Mine, and others, excell beyond this. As I show you why.

    Dr. Mark Haskins:
    On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".

    Now how abtract these views that I will show you to think indeed "theoretcial surmize exists for the potential to push perception." Then, I will give you a real image to ponder, as satellites now progress through this superhighway.

    The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.

    In order to understand this sun/earth relation, you needed to see beyond what Glast had to impart to you. Yet, I do not say that it is irrelelavnt such experimental fashion to help us see even further. You understand this now?

    So now, I'll show you what the universe looks like.

    Diagram of the Lagrange Point gravitational forces associated with the Sun-Earth system. WMAP orbits around L2, which is about 1.5 million km from the Earth. Lagrange Points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two body system like the Sun and the Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion. The forces at L2 tend to keep WMAP aligned on the Sun-Earth axis, but requires course correction to keep the spacecraft from moving toward or away from the Earth.

    Now having this perspective in place, I am telling you what this does for perception, had I not carefully taken you through the roads to discovery. What the scale for gravity does for us in our estimation of what that universe actually looks like, when you put on glasses that change the very ideas of how we see.

    While you may see refracting of the pencil in a glass of water, you may also see that the grvaiational relation is also apparent inhow we look at the universe?

    If you do not think about the force carrier of the gravity then such extension to the standard model will only hold so much for you, while others in vision had been extended far beyond what you are accustom.

    A Better Researcher, Not a Cynic...Yessss?:)

    Sometimes there are wiser words then my own, to show what is "healthy and happy" with the research into quantum gravity? "A cynic" needs to wipe the spit from their chin, while recogizing what is really going on? We want a well balanced approach.

    Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

    Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

    Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.