tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post3590387382455230389..comments2024-03-28T21:52:52.100-06:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: More Cosmic Accounting And Some Speculations On Matter-Antimatter AsymmetryAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-31076789754295326842013-12-16T18:50:04.695-07:002013-12-16T18:50:04.695-07:00If lepton number violation is not observed at the ...If lepton number violation is not observed at the LHC, then there is probably not enough LNV in the leptogenesis process at low enough energies (and hence late enough times) in the early universe <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4447v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe.</a>andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-88368124039703216242013-12-03T16:30:08.995-07:002013-12-03T16:30:08.995-07:00@ Andrew, “Your preon-string theory is interesting...@ Andrew, “Your preon-string theory is interesting … but this theory is too speculative to attract my attention unless it has testable phenomenological consequences.”<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. I would like to offer two points.<br /><br />One: The G-string is an axiom system. And in its axiomatic base, it contains *NO* known physics, neither theoretical physics (such as, quantum principle or General Relativity) nor any experimental data (such as Standard Model particle zoo, or its free parameters). <br /><br />Two: Yet, this G-string representation has *predicted* or *produced* (as the direct consequences) the followings.<br />a. The Standard Model particle zoo <br />b. The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy<br />c. The cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants<br />d. The Baryongenesis<br />e. The rest mass rising mechanism (see http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )<br />f. Many others<br /><br />What kind of phenomenological consequences should be demanded in addition to the above? <br /><br />For the other points in your reply, please visit http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/baryongenesis-master-key-of-all.html<br />Tienzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842156512465678309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-19021463502633043312013-12-03T08:55:44.012-07:002013-12-03T08:55:44.012-07:00"This is indeed the most important issue in p..."This is indeed the most important issue in physics."<br /><br />For what its worth, BAU is something that is way, way, way down my list as important issues in physics. In my view, the most important unsolved problem in physics is understanding the nature of dark matter phenomena, whatever their cause. Quantum gravity is probably number two. An understanding of the cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants is probably number three. Searches for neutrinoless double beta decay and proton decay, because of their capacity to rule out or confirm BSM physics and to determine the nature of the neutrino are probably four and five.<br /><br />In my view, questions second guessing Nature's choices of rules of the game like the hierarchy problem, naturalness, BAU, and the strong CP problem are almost dilatory by comparison.<br /><br />Your preon-string theory is interesting (I've explored the literature on them at some length and was an important contributor to several of the Wikipedia articles on preons) but this theory is too speculative to attract my attention unless it has testable phenomenological consequences.<br /><br />Your assertion that ASM-02 data showed that empty space is filled with 20% anti-matter is simply not supported by that data. The <a href="http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/04/positrons-in-sky-why.html" rel="nofollow">raw data from ASM-02</a> was that:<br /><br />"Positrons make up 5% of the lowest energy cosmic rays. Positrons grow relatively less common up to particle energies of a bit less than 10 GeV where they make up about 1% of cosmic rays of that energy, and then grow more common again, reaching a proportion of 11% by the first bin starting at 100 GeV and 15% in each of the two bins covering 206 GeV to 350 GeV (although at a declining rate as energies increase) starting from 10 GeV through at least a bin of events in the 250 GeV to 350 GeV range."<br /><br />This was in an experiment measuring cosmic rays (with high energy photons that can spontaneously give rise to electron-positron pairs) with potential quasar sources, not a measure of the matter-antimatter fraction in all of empty space generally, and not in any case 20% - it never exceeds 15% and only does that in a very narrow energy range; 5% is closer to the mark in this very select subset of matte-energy from empty space. <br /><br />Overall charged lepton asymmetry is on the order of 10^11 matter to 1 antimatter. For example, if each dollar in the United States national debt was either a charged lepton or a charged antilepton, about 100 of them would be charged antileptons.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-66516360446491381032013-12-02T17:30:25.679-07:002013-12-02T17:30:25.679-07:00@ andrew: "... we should pay more attention t...@ andrew: "... we should pay more attention to possibilities in which baryon asymmetry exists in the initial conditions of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Baryon asymmetry at that moment supports, for example, scenarios in which there is a cyclical Big Bounce with SM sphaelron process taking place each cycle ..."<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. <br />This was the exact idea of mine 30 years ago and still is. But, I am going one step beyond that today. The anti-matter is not a *symmetric partner* of matter but is the *complementary partner* of matter, that is, the anti-matter is the necessary partner co-exist with the matter simultaneously, such as, there are zillions of quarks and anti-quarks co-exist in proton simultaneously. <br /><br />In the G-string *language*, one Line-string (a, b, c), it can produce “8” distinguishable strings, {3 up-quark-like, 3 “anti”-down-quark-like, one electron-like, one e-neutrino-like}. That is, the up quark and down quark must come from two different Line-strings (one matter-string and the other anti-matter-string). <br /><br />String 1 = (V, A, A 1) = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.<br />String 2 = (A, V, V 1) = {1st , red, 1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red anti-down quark.<br /><br /><br />Thus, if we want to produce a proton-like string (a ring-string), we need “8” more “anti”-strings which produce the *down quark". Now, we have two very important consequences.<br />i. The matter-like/anti-matter-like strings are not divided by a “mirror”. That is, the matter/anti-matter symmetry is broken intrinsically. They are not symmstry partners but are complimentary partners.<br />ii. In order to form a proton-like string, we need “16” strings as the “domain”. That is, Line string (a, b, c) and Line string -(a, b, c) must produce “16” strings (with matter-like/anti-matter-like). In fact, the matter and anti-matter are entangled in this design (language).<br /><br />See, http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/g-string-and-dark-energy/ <br /><br />The AMS02 data also showed that the empty space (not stars) is filled with 20% anti-matter. In this sense, there is no baryongenesis problem.<br />Tienzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842156512465678309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-69955491790499991582013-12-02T11:23:05.338-07:002013-12-02T11:23:05.338-07:00@ Tienzen
I am inclined to think that we take the...@ Tienzen<br /><br />I am inclined to think that we take the a priori assumption that B=0 and L=0 at t=0 far too seriously and that we should pay more attention to possibilities in which baryon asymmetry exists in the initial conditions of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Baryon asymmetry at that moment supports, for example, scenarios in which there is a cyclical Big Bounce with SM sphaelron process taking place each cycle analogous to the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model in which only a handful of light elements are produced the first time around and iterations of heavy element creation in supernovae whose products are incorporated into new starts that supernovae again produce heavy elements.<br /><br />andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-54396753567416239082013-12-01T12:07:02.865-07:002013-12-01T12:07:02.865-07:00Excellent article.
@andrew, "The trouble is ...Excellent article.<br /><br />@andrew, "The trouble is that if you start with B=0 and L=0, as you would expect to in a Big Bang comprised initially of pure energy, it is hard to determine how you end up with the observed values of B and L in the universe which are so far from zero."<br /><br />This is indeed the most important issue in physics. When we understand "Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate? (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html )”, we have a chance to know that how a zero (0) becomes non-zero. <br /><br />The above issue is in fact a different way of stating the baryon asymmetry (baryongenesis) issue. When we truly understood the dark mass and dark energy (http://physicsfocus.org/katie-mack-space-station-ams-detector-has-not-found-dark-matter-despite-what-some-media-reports-say/#comment-3232 ), we have a chance to crack this issue.<br />Tienzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842156512465678309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-24609806934204976252013-11-30T18:56:54.563-07:002013-11-30T18:56:54.563-07:00I have seen a couple of papers claiming that SM sp...I have seen a couple of papers claiming that SM sphalerons really can do the job without any BSM physics, but can't find the links at the moment and acknowledge that this is not a msinstream position.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-15081682252443742572013-11-28T01:24:21.521-07:002013-11-28T01:24:21.521-07:00"although there are some theorists who dissen..."although there are some theorists who dissent from this analysis"<br /><br />That talk isn't dissenting from the position that SM sphalerons alone can't create the baryon asymmetry. You'll notice that they talk about "leptogenesis" happening first. So the idea is that some BSM physics first creates a lepton asymmetry, and then the SM sphalerons turn this into a baryon asymmetry. I don't understand how this works if the SM sphalerons are so rare, but it's definitely what people are claiming. <br /><br />Furthermore, it's said that right-handed neutrinos are an easy way to produce the lepton asymmetry. For example, see the top of page 10 <a href="http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C040802/papers/L018.PDF" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />In fact I think this is what happens in the neutrino minimal standard model of Shaposhnikov et al - there's leptogenesis from the right-handed neutrinos, and then the SM sphalerons produce the baryon asymmetry. Perhaps the only problematic thing, is that Shaposhnikov needs two GeV-mass neutrinos whose masses are extremely close, for everything to work out. I wonder if just one is enough, and then the third RH neutrino can be at some other mass scale entirely, like eV-scale for LSND... Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.com