Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 23 Jul 2014, at 01:05, LizR wrote: On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote: I agree that it does not make any sense. But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the universe. We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very confusing. Richard Well Tegmark made an interesting attempt to classify different notions of many universe, although it does not mention the MV (strings landscape---or does he?) I think his level 2 or maybe 3 is post-inflationary bubbles which I believe are equivalent to the string landscape. , and miss the comp many dreams. Normally all many-things should emerge from the many dreams if comp is true. Well we know you and Tegmark aren't yet in tune regarding consciousness... :-) We were in Tune on this, implicitly at least, when ha talk about QM and Everett MW. I think we know now that Tegmark is not in tune with himself, after he wrote his weird paper on consciousness. But we know also that he does not take into account comp and the FPI into account, so miss that he has to extends Everett's embedding of the physicist in physics by the embedding of the mathematician in mathematics, and this in the same way, which leads to the measure problem. The string landscape MV (thanks to Liz for the precision) is different but not incompatible with Everett MW, although this should lead to multi-multiverses. Other terms don't quite seem to work. Metaverse, Omniverse, Multiplicity ... I quite like the Uberverse, which as far as I know I just made up, but some may disagree. I think Max T's level 4 multiverse is sometimes called Platonia. Poetically, but it is very naive. An expression like mathematical reality is something to be big to make sense. Mathematical logicians know that well. Then with comp the idea that there is more than elementary arithmetic is absolutely undecidable, if only by the hole dream argument. If someone can sum up the relations between SUSY, Higgs, and the string landscape, I would perhaps be able to say more. If not I put the video and references on my already long videos and references list, and might, or not, comment later. it is a difficult subject. I tried to ... to some extent ... in my last post. I think we are in agreement, OK. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string landscape universe. Perhaps but that's not the only way it could happen, string theory could be wrong and Everett still be right. Everett pointed out that Schrodinger's Wave Equation seems to be saying that everything that could happen does happen, and that seems to be what Andre Linde's theory of Eternal Inflation is saying too. And that's why I thing it's so important to know if the variation in the Big Bang polarization radiation that was announced in March is real or not. If Linde is right then Everett probably is too. if our bubble in the string landscape is infinite (which I think it can be?) then it *itself* contains a MWI style multiverse, Yes So we get a redundant infinity of identical universes (infinity squared ? ,Or cubed Those are all the same sized infinity, to get a larger one you have to go 2^infinity. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 25 July 2014 02:38, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string landscape universe. Perhaps but that's not the only way it could happen, string theory could be wrong and Everett still be right. Sure. I meant should - given that both theories are correct. Everett pointed out that Schrodinger's Wave Equation seems to be saying that everything that could happen does happen, and that seems to be what Andre Linde's theory of Eternal Inflation is saying too. And that's why I thing it's so important to know if the variation in the Big Bang polarization radiation that was announced in March is real or not. If Linde is right then Everett probably is too. They may even become the same thing expressed differently. I am also looking forward to whether BICEP2 is supported by further observation. if our bubble in the string landscape is infinite (which I think it can be?) then it *itself* contains a MWI style multiverse, Yes So we get a redundant infinity of identical universes (infinity squared ? ,Or cubed Those are all the same sized infinity, to get a larger one you have to go 2^infinity. Yes, indeed. And the redundancy doesn't help with any measure problems (although I suspect those ARE a limitation of human maths or at least something we have yet to understand. Maybe we need another Cantor...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Yes, in that sense tronnies form protons, just as they form everything else in our Universe. Protons need a lot of tronnies to do what they do. Combinations of hydrogen (one proton) produce helium and the fusion energy of stars. This energy is provided by the approximately 15 gamma ray entrons (30 tronnies) in each proton. The neutrino entron (two tronnies) in the proton provides galactic gravity when it is released as a neutrino photon (aka graviton) with the destruction of protons in Black Holes. As to your island issue, I think you may have a point if it were true that our Universe began with a singularity. But that is not correct. I explain the Big Bang and inflation in Chapter XXV, “Life and Death of Universes”. Our Universe was preceded by our predecessor universe. Universes are created in Big Bang explosions of Monster Black Holes which form near the center of each universe about half way through the life of the universe. The Monster Black Holes grows by consuming galaxies until it has consumed a large majority of the universe. Toward the end of the life of the universe the gravity of the Monster Black Hole extends to the edge of the universe. When the Monster Black Hole explodes in its Big Bang, galaxies from the outer edge of the universe would have been accelerating toward the Monster Black Hole for many billions of years, picking up speed each second. Some of these galaxies will be approaching the site of the Monster Black Hole from all directions when it explodes. They will be traveling at speeds of many thousand times the speed of light (such as 20,000 c) and may be located several light years from the Monster when it explodes. These galaxies will pass through the site of the Big Bang explosion and will continue at about the same speed expanding in all directions to create the inflation period of the new universe. This has been going on for many universes. (I take a guess that our Universe is about 47 in the series of universes.) The new universe will be made of matter or anti-matter depending on the matter or anti-matter of the predecessor universes. This is why we do not in our Universe see any anti-matter galaxies. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse On 23 July 2014 12:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Tronnies do not form protons. Tronnies form only entrons (two tronnies), electrons (three tronnies) and positrons (three tronnies). Protons are comprised of a very high energy electron (comprised of an electron and a neutrino entron) and two positrons plus about 15 gamma ray entrons. So tronnies do form protons - quite a number of tronnies per proton, to be sure. But anyway. Antiprotons are comprised of a very high energy positron (comprised of a positron and a neutrino entron) and two electrons plus about 15 gamma ray entrons. In the beginning there were probably an equal number of protons and antiprotons. These particles tended to annihilate each other. But if the proton collected an electron to form a hydrogen atom it was then no longer attracted to the antiproton. The same applied to the antiproton if it collected a positron to form an anti-hydrogen atom. Soon however, purely by chance, protons and hydrogen began to outnumber antiprotons and anti-hydrogen. The more protons and hydrogen that formed as compared to anti-protons and anti-hydrogen, the more the population of free positrons was reduced as compared to free electrons. So there were many more free electrons as compared to free positrons. This meant that neutrino entrons were more likely to combine with an electron than to combine with a positron. This lead to a further increase in the number of protons as compared to antiprotons. But protons continued to annihilate antiprotons so the population of antiprotons were basically wiped out. All this probably took a long time. Any anti-hydrogen that formed could exist unless it and some nearby hydrogen became ionized in which case the protons would annihilate the anti-protons. There was a 50-50 chance it could have gone the other way in which case we would live in an anti-universe made of anti-matter. You and I would be anti-matter! OK, but I suspect that your answer begs the question of why the universe isn't composed of islands of matter and antimatter, because you would tend to get domains forming of one or the other, almost certainly of a size far smaller than that of the entire visible universe. The characteristic sizes of these would be determined by the average speed with which the matter involved was moving during the big bang (this is similar to the horizon problem that inflation is supposed to solve, I think). So if you had a region that happened
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether the MV opposes supersymmetry in some sense. Not really. If String Theory is true there are at least 10^500 other universes with different laws of physics and maybe a infinite number, but Supersymmetry is a narrower idea than String Theory. Supersymmetry is consistent with String Theory but does not require it. So Supersymmetry could be true but String Theory false. And Supersymmetry is not dead yet but it's not looking very healthy right now; most thought that when the LHC came online we'd find Supersymmetry almost immediately, but instead there is still not even a hint of it. I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It's conceivable they are the same thing, that's why I thought the discovery of the polarization variation of the Big Bang microwaves was such a big deal. Inflation theory predicted that the enormous acceleration of the very early universe would create gravity waves that would distort the Big Bang microwaves in a certain way and that is what seems to have been discovered in March. Alan Guth postulated a inflation field that decayed away in a process somewhat analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more leisurely pace. But then Andre Linde proved that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it Eternal Inflation. Linde showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in one and doesn't decay in 2 others, and it goes on forever. So what we call The Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything it's just the end of inflation in our particular part of the universe. So according to Linde this field created one Big Bang, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 etc in a unending process. Maybe in one of those universes Schrodinger's cat is dead and in another the cat is alive. So if that variation of the Big Bang microwaves turns out to be real (and we should know by Christmas) it would be a big shot in the arm for Everett. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It seems that John Clark is. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether the MV opposes supersymmetry in some sense. Not really. If String Theory is true there are at least 10^500 other universes with different laws of physics and maybe a infinite number, but Supersymmetry is a narrower idea than String Theory. Supersymmetry is consistent with String Theory but does not require it. So Supersymmetry could be true but String Theory false. And Supersymmetry is not dead yet but it's not looking very healthy right now; most thought that when the LHC came online we'd find Supersymmetry almost immediately, but instead there is still not even a hint of it. I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It's conceivable they are the same thing, that's why I thought the discovery of the polarization variation of the Big Bang microwaves was such a big deal. Inflation theory predicted that the enormous acceleration of the very early universe would create gravity waves that would distort the Big Bang microwaves in a certain way and that is what seems to have been discovered in March. Alan Guth postulated a inflation field that decayed away in a process somewhat analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more leisurely pace. But then Andre Linde proved that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it Eternal Inflation. Linde showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in one and doesn't decay in 2 others, and it goes on forever. So what we call The Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything it's just the end of inflation in our particular part of the universe. So according to Linde this field created one Big Bang, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 etc in a unending process. Maybe in one of those universes Schrodinger's cat is dead and in another the cat is alive. So if that variation of the Big Bang microwaves turns out to be real (and we should know by Christmas) it would be a big shot in the arm for Everett. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
I like how Max Tegmark calssified the multiverses into level I, II, II, and IV level multiverses. Level I multiverse is other bubble universes existing in our same spacetime -- that shall we say froze, out from an underlying state of eternal inflation -- and which has a high degree of measured flatness and could fit a huge number of bubble universes in it that are outside of our cosmic horizon i.e. whose light has yet to reach our own observable bubble universe (and may not reach it for trillions of years) Level II multiverse is the multiverse of the infinite (or hugely vast number) of other possible physical realities that would manifest by changing the value of one or more of the fundamental constants. He calls this effective laws of physics to distinguish them from a more fundamental (and highly abstract) physics that does not depend on specific values of these constants. Level II is the Everett MWI multiverse indicated by quantum mechanics. Level IV -- is a proposed multiverse where other fundamental mathematical structures (that underlie physical manifested reality which we experience and measure) give rise to different fundamental equations of physics. So far -- as far as I know (which may quite possibly be not be much grin) -- this seems to be the best attempt at providing a classification of the various kinds of multiverses I have seen. One speculation Max Tegmark made in his book the Mathematical Universe is that it could be possible that the perhaps infinite numbers of level I and level III universes might map onto each other... in other words that they might be two avenues for explaining why these other universes exist -- there is a infinite or very nearly infinite volume of spacetime in which they can exist and yet be completely hidden from us and for the MWI of quantum physics suggesting that there is a branching process going on at each quantum choice. The infinite (or hugely numerous) number of potential Level I universes might be one and the same with the also hugely numerous level III (MWI) universes. This all gets supremely abstract and is excluded fro the realm of the observable being only indirectly inferred based on an understanding of inflation and quantum mechanics. Chris From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:42 AM Subject: Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It seems that John Clark is. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether the MV opposes supersymmetry in some sense. Not really. If String Theory is true there are at least 10^500 other universes with different laws of physics and maybe a infinite number, but Supersymmetry is a narrower idea than String Theory. Supersymmetry is consistent with String Theory but does not require it. So Supersymmetry could be true but String Theory false. And Supersymmetry is not dead yet but it's not looking very healthy right now; most thought that when the LHC came online we'd find Supersymmetry almost immediately, but instead there is still not even a hint of it. I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It's conceivable they are the same thing, that's why I thought the discovery of the polarization variation of the Big Bang microwaves was such a big deal. Inflation theory predicted that the enormous acceleration of the very early universe would create gravity waves that would distort the Big Bang microwaves in a certain way and that is what seems to have been discovered in March. Alan Guth postulated a inflation field that decayed away in a process somewhat analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more leisurely pace. But then Andre Linde proved that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it Eternal Inflation. Linde showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in one and doesn't decay in 2 others, and it goes on forever. So what we call The Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything it's just the end of inflation in our particular part of the universe. So according to Linde this field created one Big Bang, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 etc in a unending process. Maybe in one of those universes Schrodinger's cat is dead and in another the cat is alive. So if that variation of the Big Bang microwaves turns out to be real (and we should
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 24 July 2014 04:42, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It seems that John Clark is. There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string landscape universe. That is, one in 10^500 of the string landscape universes happens to have the same laws of physics as ours, and 1 in a very, very large number of THOSE is identical to this one, or maybe differs by a single particle's spin. This gives us, at humungous distances, an identical multiverse to the one the MWI does (assuming being in identical quantum states means actually being identical, as I believe it does). Plus if our bubble in the string landscape is infinite (which I think it can be?) then it *itself* contains a MWI style multiverse, at rather smaller distances - maybe a mere 10^10^70 light years, or whatever! So we get a redundant infinity of identical universes (infinity squared ? Or cubed, even, given the three different ways these can arise...? (Not that that's any larger than plain old countable infinity, of course!)). Excuse me, I have to go and lie down now. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 July 2014 04:42, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse It seems that John Clark is. There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string landscape universe. That's possible. String theory works like QFT (quantum field theory). I presume but do not really know that QFT works whether every quantum state is realized or only one in every physical interaction. That is, one in 10^500 of the string landscape universes happens to have the same laws of physics as ours, and 1 in a very, very large number of THOSE is identical to this one, or maybe differs by a single particle's spin. That's way short of the number of worlds in a MWI reality, which is/are nearly infinite. The 10^500 is the number of possible distinct Calabi-Yau (compactified) Manifolds CYMs. Given the size from Yau's book at 1000 Planck lengths, and a max close-packed density of 10^90/cc, we can fill a goodly number of universes plus the enclosing Metaverse (formerly known as a multiverse and also a Megaverse) with an array of CYMs each distinct from all others, amenable to a natural number system. Richard This gives us, at humungous distances, an identical multiverse to the one the MWI does (assuming being in identical quantum states means actually being identical, as I believe it does). Plus if our bubble in the string landscape is infinite (which I think it can be?) then it *itself* contains a MWI style multiverse, at rather smaller distances - maybe a mere 10^10^70 light years, or whatever! So we get a redundant infinity of identical universes (infinity squared ? Or cubed, even, given the three different ways these can arise...? (Not that that's any larger than plain old countable infinity, of course!)). Excuse me, I have to go and lie down now. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 21 July 2014 17:52, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: But they cannot cancel to high precision if the symmetry is broken I think this is something to do with their contributions to renormalising (is that the word?) the Higgs mass. They can somehow bring it down from around the Planck mass to more like 126 GeV via something similar to vacuum polarisationbut I don't understand how, since I would expect masses to be purely additive. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 22 July 2014 12:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: LizR, I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about. The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse. No, I'm not confusing these. I'm asking about a string landscape / eternal inflation style multiverse, in which most universes will have different physics from ours. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 21 Jul 2014, at 01:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: My only comment is that SUSY is associated with string theory, not MW. String theory includes QFT as a low energy equivalent w/o SUSY and QFT does not predict MW. But then I am just another dummie. No problem Richard, the future belongs to the gentle dummies :) String theory is still quantum mechanics, and so get automatically the MW (unless we add a collapse postulate, although I don't even see how that could be done, like in QFT. So I tend to separate the super- symmetry question from the MW. MW is a consequence of just 3 things: linearity of the wave equation (unitarity), linearity of the tensor products, the superposition principle. Then we can define a World, by the closure of set of events for interaction, and we get the MW, for QM and all its consistent extension (with special hamiltonians). Bruno Richard On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it seems to me, don't. And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry breakings This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 dimensions. What I don't understand is why this would not also allow supersymmetry to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 21 Jul 2014, at 02:56, LizR wrote: Thanks! I will perhaps have more to say / ask once I've looked at those. I will take a look on Jesse's references once I am less busy. I wait for you making a good summary :) (a priori, I see no relation between Suzy and MW). Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
I agree that it does not make any sense. But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the universe. We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very confusing. Richard On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 July 2014 10:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: LizR, I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about. The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse. Richard I don't think it makes sense to say that some types of multiverse are inside and others outside our universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote: I agree that it does not make any sense. But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the universe. We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very confusing. Richard Well Tegmark made an interesting attempt to classify different notions of many universe, although it does not mention the MV (strings landscape---or does he?), and miss the comp many dreams. Normally all many-things should emerge from the many dreams if comp is true. The string landscape MV (thanks to Liz for the precision) is different but not incompatible with Everett MW, although this should lead to multi-multiverses. If someone can sum up the relations between SUSY, Higgs, and the string landscape, I would perhaps be able to say more. If not I put the video and references on my already long videos and references list, and might, or not, comment later. it is a difficult subject. Bruno On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 July 2014 10:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: LizR, I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about. The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse. Richard I don't think it makes sense to say that some types of multiverse are inside and others outside our universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 22 Jul 2014, at 07:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 July 2014 10:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: LizR, I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about. The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse. Richard I don't think it makes sense to say that some types of multiverse are inside and others outside our universe. If the string landscape allows different laws of physics which would be so much different so that the MV does not interfere with the computationalist 1p indeterminacy, I think it might make sense. In that case superstring+MW would entail MMW (multi-multiverse). Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Symmetry Every proton contains one electron and two positrons. There is one electron for each proton. There exists a relatively few free positrons and there is a free electron to match each free positrons. Electrons and positrons are created and destroyed only in pairs. So there is exactly the same number of positrons in our Universe as electrons. It is as simple as that. There is no asymmetry in my theory. The Standard Model is much too complicated: There are no “three generations of particles”. Everything in our Universe is made from tronnies. Two tronnies make an entron. Three tronnies make an electron and three tronnies make a positron. A proton is made from two positrons and one electron plus a very high energy entron and about 15 gamma ray entrons. The gamma ray entrons are released in the course of fusion processes. The very high energy entron is released in the course of proton-antiproton destruction that occurs in Black Holes. This very high energy entron is the neutrino entron and it escapes the Black Holes as a neutrino photon (aka the graviton) to provide the gravity holding galaxies together. Stable atoms are comprised of only protons, electrons and entrons. Each photon is comprised of only one entron. Molecules are comprised of atoms. Gravity is provided by neutrino photons. Everything else in our Universe is made from molecules and atoms. Muons are electrons and entrons or positrons and entrons. There are no quarks or gluons. There is no “strong force”. Atomic nuclei are held together with Coulomb forces provided by the tronnies and the things made from tronnies. All bosons are photons and all fermions including protons are combinations of electrons, positrons and entrons. Photons have mass so their paths can be curved by gravity provided by neutrino photons (gravitons) escaping from massive articles. The exclusion principle results from the fact that electrons are self-propelled at their natural speed of 2.19 X 106 m/s and they orbit in synchronization and repel each other. I don’t have the answer to Mercury’s path and the Bose-Einstein stuff but I am certain that my model will provide a simple explanation. Do you have any reason to believe that it doesn’t? John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:42 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse There is an observed asymmetry in the Universe - if not between matter and antimatter, then between the distribution of positively and negatively charged tronnies. Why would the positive ones end up in protons and the negative ones end up in electrons (or an excess of both, respectively?)That's still an asymmetry which your theory has to address, so it can't be exactly symmetric. Or if it is, it doesn't match the world we observe. It seems to me that your theory, although in principle it simplifies things compared to the Standard Model, requires a lot of extra epicycles to make it accord with reality. To be taken seriously you really need everything we observe to fall out neatly and inevitably from the theory - that would include the 3 generations of particles we observe, the properties of all the observed particles, the fermion-boson distinction, the Bose-Einstein stuff, the exclusion principle, and so on. I think you need to get a list of things that are explained by our current theories and see if you can match it - and preferably explain any discrepancies (as General Relativity did with the perihelion advance of Mercury) - plus it should also make extra predictions that will enable your theory to be tested against the existing model experimentally (as General Relativity did with the bending of starlight near the Sun). On 22 July 2014 05:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: LizR, The simple answer is: “There is no Higgs Boson and there is no Higgs Field.” The particle that gives mass to all other particles is the simple “entron” each of which is a combination of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie as explained very simply in my Book: “Tronnies –The Source of the Coulomb Force”, available at Amazon.Com. I have attached a copy of Chapter IV, “The Entron” from my book. You’ll need to print it out. I have also attached a copy of a Higgs paper dated 19 October 1964 for those of you who have not read it. I have to admit that, although I have tried, I do not understand his theory. It does appear to deal with a breakdown of symmetry. I will say that my theory is one hundred percent symmetric and contains no symmetry breakdown. If you read my book you will see that our Universe exactly symmetric with exactly the same number of positrons as electrons and exactly the same number of plus tronnies as minus tronnies. Take a guess as to where all of the “missing”
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
I think I made a summary above of my initial reaction. But the reason I asked the question is that I agree with you. And after reading a number of comments, I still don't see any definite opposition here. I think the opposition of ideas is between the fact that SUSY leaves more to be discovered at (reasonably) accessible energies, while the MV doesn't. That is to say, our physics may have just fallen out of the 10^500 windings of strings through Calabi-Yau manifolds with no further explanation - we just happen, for anthropic reasons, to be in a very, very special location in which the cosmological constant and Higgs mass happen to be small, and so on. On this view, this is not due to some deeper theory that we can discover experimentally. The only deeper theory involved is string theory, which is hidden away from possible testing down at the Planck length and up at Planck energy. So the MV explanation is many orders of magnitude away from any possible experimental testing. Naturally that doesn't appeal to the people who run the LHC! On 22 July 2014 20:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Jul 2014, at 02:56, LizR wrote: Thanks! I will perhaps have more to say / ask once I've looked at those. I will take a look on Jesse's references once I am less busy. I wait for you making a good summary :) (a priori, I see no relation between Suzy and MW). Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote: I agree that it does not make any sense. But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the universe. We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very confusing. Richard Well Tegmark made an interesting attempt to classify different notions of many universe, although it does not mention the MV (strings landscape---or does he?) I think his level 2 or maybe 3 is post-inflationary bubbles which I believe are equivalent to the string landscape. , and miss the comp many dreams. Normally all many-things should emerge from the many dreams if comp is true. Well we know you and Tegmark aren't yet in tune regarding consciousness... :-) The string landscape MV (thanks to Liz for the precision) is different but not incompatible with Everett MW, although this should lead to multi-multiverses. Other terms don't quite seem to work. Metaverse, Omniverse, Multiplicity ... I quite like the Uberverse, which as far as I know I just made up, but some may disagree. I think Max T's level 4 multiverse is sometimes called Platonia. If someone can sum up the relations between SUSY, Higgs, and the string landscape, I would perhaps be able to say more. If not I put the video and references on my already long videos and references list, and might, or not, comment later. it is a difficult subject. I tried to ... to some extent ... in my last post. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 23 July 2014 05:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Symmetry Every proton contains one electron and two positrons. There is one electron for each proton. There exists a relatively few free positrons and there is a free electron to match each free positrons. Electrons and positrons are created and destroyed only in pairs. So there is exactly the same number of positrons in our Universe as electrons. It is as simple as that. There is no asymmetry in my theory. Forgive me but I think you have missed the point. There is an observed asymmetry in nature - there are far more electrons than positrons, and far more protons than antiprotons. Your theory, very admirably, reduces the fundamental components of matter to two (I think) - and these exist in equal numbers, overall - but there is still an asymmetry in how they are *arranged*. That is, your theory needs to explain the observed fact that the universe is mainly made of (what we call) matter rather than antimatter. Why do tronnies prefer to form electrons and protons rather than electrons and positrons, for example? Or to put it in tronnie terms, why are there far more occasions where two positrons and one electron have formed a proton than there are where two electrons and one positron have formed an anti-proton? The physics involved in both these processes should be symmetrical, so each should be equally likely. Yet clearly something caused vastly more protons to form than anti-protons. Why is this? To have credibility, your theory needs to address this observed property of the universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Tronnies do not form protons. Tronnies form only entrons (two tronnies), electrons (three tronnies) and positrons (three tronnies). Protons are comprised of a very high energy electron (comprised of an electron and a neutrino entron) and two positrons plus about 15 gamma ray entrons. Antiprotons are comprised of a very high energy positron (comprised of a positron and a neutrino entron) and two electrons plus about 15 gamma ray entrons. In the beginning there were probably an equal number of protons and antiprotons. These particles tended to annihilate each other. But if the proton collected an electron to form a hydrogen atom it was then no longer attracted to the antiproton. The same applied to the antiproton if it collected a positron to form an anti-hydrogen atom. Soon however, purely by chance, protons and hydrogen began to outnumber antiprotons and anti-hydrogen. The more protons and hydrogen that formed as compared to anti-protons and anti-hydrogen, the more the population of free positrons was reduced as compared to free electrons. So there were many more free electrons as compared to free positrons. This meant that neutrino entrons were more likely to combine with an electron than to combine with a positron. This lead to a further increase in the number of protons as compared to antiprotons. But protons continued to annihilate antiprotons so the population of antiprotons were basically wiped out. All this probably took a long time. Any anti-hydrogen that formed could exist unless it and some nearby hydrogen became ionized in which case the protons would annihilate the anti-protons. There was a 50-50 chance it could have gone the other way in which case we would live in an anti-universe made of anti-matter. You and I would be anti-matter! There is a good chance that beyond the shell of our Universe, there is a universe out there that is made of almost all anti-matter. If that is true, let’s hope that our universes don’t collide. John R From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:13 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse On 23 July 2014 05:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Symmetry Every proton contains one electron and two positrons. There is one electron for each proton. There exists a relatively few free positrons and there is a free electron to match each free positrons. Electrons and positrons are created and destroyed only in pairs. So there is exactly the same number of positrons in our Universe as electrons. It is as simple as that. There is no asymmetry in my theory. Forgive me but I think you have missed the point. There is an observed asymmetry in nature - there are far more electrons than positrons, and far more protons than antiprotons. Your theory, very admirably, reduces the fundamental components of matter to two (I think) - and these exist in equal numbers, overall - but there is still an asymmetry in how they are arranged. That is, your theory needs to explain the observed fact that the universe is mainly made of (what we call) matter rather than antimatter. Why do tronnies prefer to form electrons and protons rather than electrons and positrons, for example? Or to put it in tronnie terms, why are there far more occasions where two positrons and one electron have formed a proton than there are where two electrons and one positron have formed an anti-proton? The physics involved in both these processes should be symmetrical, so each should be equally likely. Yet clearly something caused vastly more protons to form than anti-protons. Why is this? To have credibility, your theory needs to address this observed property of the universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 23 July 2014 12:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Tronnies do not form protons. Tronnies form only entrons (two tronnies), electrons (three tronnies) and positrons (three tronnies). Protons are comprised of a very high energy electron (comprised of an electron and a neutrino entron) and two positrons plus about 15 gamma ray entrons. So tronnies *do* form protons - quite a number of tronnies per proton, to be sure. But anyway. Antiprotons are comprised of a very high energy positron (comprised of a positron and a neutrino entron) and two electrons plus about 15 gamma ray entrons. In the beginning there were probably an equal number of protons and antiprotons. These particles tended to annihilate each other. But if the proton collected an electron to form a hydrogen atom it was then no longer attracted to the antiproton. The same applied to the antiproton if it collected a positron to form an anti-hydrogen atom. Soon however, *purely by chance*, protons and hydrogen began to outnumber antiprotons and anti-hydrogen. The more protons and hydrogen that formed as compared to anti-protons and anti-hydrogen, the more the population of free positrons was reduced as compared to free electrons. So there were many more free electrons as compared to free positrons. This meant that neutrino entrons were more likely to combine with an electron than to combine with a positron. This lead to a further increase in the number of protons as compared to antiprotons. But protons continued to annihilate antiprotons so the population of antiprotons were basically wiped out. All this probably took a long time. Any anti-hydrogen that formed could exist unless it and some nearby hydrogen became ionized in which case the protons would annihilate the anti-protons. There was a 50-50 chance it could have gone the other way in which case we would live in an anti-universe made of anti-matter. You and I would be anti-matter! OK, but I suspect that your answer begs the question of why the universe isn't composed of islands of matter and antimatter, because you would tend to get domains forming of one or the other, almost certainly of a size far smaller than that of the entire visible universe. The characteristic sizes of these would be determined by the average speed with which the matter involved was moving during the big bang (this is similar to the horizon problem that inflation is supposed to solve, I think). So if you had a region that happened to become matter, the effect would only spread out to a certain distance in the time available. As you say this would probably take a long time - have you done any calculations of how long it was likely to take, from which I think you should be able to tell how far the effect could spread inside an expanding plasma (are you happy with the current scientific description of the big bang?) I suspect you will get domains of matter and antimatter that are a lot smaller than the observed size of the universe, at least you will unless you invoke something like inflation to spread the random effect out over huge distances. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
If you're interested in physical evidence of the multiverse it will probably come from radio telescopes not particle accelerators. Back in March of this year there was a report of variations of the polarization of the microwave radiation from the Big Bang that could only have come from Inflation during the Big Bang and it's very hard to explain how inflation could happen without a multiverse. More recently some have said that the variations in the polarization might have come from local conditions around the Milky Way and not from the Big Bank at all. Much more data about this coming from a number of other independent experimenters is going to become available very soon to clear this up. If that variation in polarization is real then the multiverse almost certainly is too; if the variation is not real then the multiverse may or may not exist. One way or another we will know before Christmas. John K Clark On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it seems to me, don't. And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry breakings This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 dimensions. What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 22 July 2014 05:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: If you're interested in physical evidence of the multiverse it will probably come from radio telescopes not particle accelerators. Back in March of this year there was a report of variations of the polarization of the microwave radiation from the Big Bang that could only have come from Inflation during the Big Bang and it's very hard to explain how inflation could happen without a multiverse. More recently some have said that the variations in the polarization might have come from local conditions around the Milky Way and not from the Big Bank at all. Much more data about this coming from a number of other independent experimenters is going to become available very soon to clear this up. If that variation in polarization is real then the multiverse almost certainly is too; if the variation is not real then the multiverse may or may not exist. One way or another we will know before Christmas. Thanks. As (I think) David Kaplan said in the movie, it's a f***ing cool time to be alive if your interested in physics. For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether the MV opposes supersymmetry in some sense. I suspect that the difference has been blown up a bit for popular consumption in the movie, and that both can coexist, but that's only a suspicion. Cosmological evidence for the MV is great, but still seems indirect in a similar sense to subatomic evidence (imho) - unless we see a cold spot or something in the CMBR that indicates a domain wall within observational reach (or a dark flow which I think might be a prediction of MV theory?) we have to deduce it from theory in the same way we do from observations of which particles exist. It's the best theory we've thought of so far, of course! - but maybe there's something better we haven't thought of yet. Of course. SUSY also sounds like a neat idea, and allegedly it's the only (?) such theory that fits in with general relativity. Not that I understand why that is, even to a first approximation. But I doubt they meant that SUSY *with the observed particle masses* is the only theory that could fit with GR, so that still (ISTM) leaves room for a MV to give a smorgasbord of different particles across the whole schmeer... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
There is an observed asymmetry in the Universe - if not between matter and antimatter, then between the distribution of positively and negatively charged tronnies. Why would the positive ones end up in protons and the negative ones end up in electrons (or an excess of both, respectively?)That's still an asymmetry which your theory has to address, so it can't be *exactly* symmetric. Or if it is, it doesn't match the world we observe. It seems to me that your theory, although in principle it simplifies things compared to the Standard Model, requires a lot of extra epicycles to make it accord with reality. To be taken seriously you really need everything we observe to fall out neatly and inevitably from the theory - that would include the 3 generations of particles we observe, the properties of all the observed particles, the fermion-boson distinction, the Bose-Einstein stuff, the exclusion principle, and so on. I think you need to get a list of things that are explained by our current theories and see if you can match it - and preferably explain any discrepancies (as General Relativity did with the perihelion advance of Mercury) - plus it should also make extra predictions that will enable your theory to be tested against the existing model experimentally (as General Relativity did with the bending of starlight near the Sun). On 22 July 2014 05:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: LizR, The simple answer is: “There is no Higgs Boson and there is no Higgs Field.” The particle that gives mass to all other particles is the simple “entron” each of which is a combination of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie as explained very simply in my Book: “Tronnies –The Source of the Coulomb Force”, available at Amazon.Com. I have attached a copy of Chapter IV, “The Entron” from my book. You’ll need to print it out. I have also attached a copy of a Higgs paper dated 19 October 1964 for those of you who have not read it. I have to admit that, although I have tried, I do not understand his theory. It does appear to deal with a breakdown of symmetry. I will say that my theory is one hundred percent symmetric and contains no symmetry breakdown. If you read my book you will see that our Universe exactly symmetric with exactly the same number of positrons as electrons and exactly the same number of plus tronnies as minus tronnies. Take a guess as to where all of the “missing” positrons are hiding. Entrons, electrons and positrons combine to make protons and anti-protons, which are exactly opposite each other, although happily, there are more protons than anti-protons. There is one entron in each photon. Entrons, electrons, positrons and protons combine to make everything else in our Universe. J Ross *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:22 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Mind you I think the main argument against supersymmetry is that the names are so damn ugly. A stop squark and a wino go into a bar... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
LizR, I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about. The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse. Richard On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Mind you I think the main argument against supersymmetry is that the names are so damn ugly. A stop squark and a wino go into a bar... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
On 22 July 2014 10:18, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: LizR, I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about. The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse. Richard I don't think it makes sense to say that some types of multiverse are inside and others outside our universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it seems to me, don't. And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry breakings This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 dimensions. What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
My only comment is that SUSY is associated with string theory, not MW. String theory includes QFT as a low energy equivalent w/o SUSY and QFT does not predict MW. But then I am just another dummie. Richard On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it seems to me, don't. And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry breakings This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 dimensions. What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Also 10^500 is the number of unique windings thru 500 topo holes each winding having 10 quantum states, but in 6 dimensions, not 11. I also do not understand why SUSY would rule out MW. Richard On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this? On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it seems to me, don't. And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry breakings This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 dimensions. What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these things will comment, but I believe it has to do with what physicists call the hierarchy problem, here are some links for your perusal: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/ http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/some-speculative-theoretical-ideas-for-the-lhc/supersymmetry/supersymmetry-what-is-it/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-supersymmetry/ http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/07/01/the-hierarchy-problem-why-the-higgs-has-a-snowballs-chance-in-hell/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem And I don't think the physicists are really saying that 115 GeV Higgs would rule out any sort of multiverse or need for anthropic arguments to explain various constants of nature, just that it would allow for a non-anthropic, supersymmetery-based explanation for *this particular* lucky (for life) value of the Higgs mass, that is neither zero nor near the Planck scale. Jesse On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: We've just been watching Particle Fever - a documentary about the LHC (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David Kaplan, IIRC) say that a 115GeV Higgs would be a clear sign of Supersymmetry, while a 140GeV (or greater) would indicate a Multiverse (meaning a String Landscape, I assume). The measured value is 126GeV, which apparently leaves everything open for now. They seem quite certain that there is a dichotony - SUSY vs MV - and that the MV answer would effectively be the end of physics, I assume because the fundamental physics underlying the string landscape is only accessible at scales/energies far beyond those accessible to any currently conceivable experiment. I can't quite see this, so perhaps someone could elaborate. That is, it seems to me unlikely that there is a theory that is going to say the ratio of electron to proton masses is exactly what it is (1:1836.15267245 or so, I believe) and that this emerges from simple principles. Since the proton is a composite particle a better example might be the ratio of the electron to muon masses, which I believe is around 1:206.7682821476077. When the chemical elements were being discovered, it became clear that there were simple principles underlying the apparently complexity. There were what seemed like completely different substances, which turned out to be related by simple numbers, e.g. if you take something like 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen and mix them you get 18 grams of water. (Or whatever the correct figures are.) The point being that these small integer (or almost-integer, but they couldn't measure them accurately enough to realise that at the time) values indicate something simpler underlying the observed complexity, whereas 1:1836.15267245 or 1:206.7682821476077, it seems to me, don't. And so on for the various other dimensionless ratios that abound in the Standard Model, plus the fact that we see neutrinos with only one handedness, the absence of antimatter and various other apparent symmetry breakings This seems to me to indicate that a multiverse could easily be involved, and that the (ahem) string of apparently random values we observed emerge from something like there being 10^500 ways to knot a piece of string in 11 dimensions. What I don't understand is why this would not *also* allow supersymmetry to exist? Or why would SUSY rule out a multiverse, as the people in the film seemed to think? Or maybe I misunderstood them. Anyone out there with the ability to explain advanced physics to dummies? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Thanks! I will perhaps have more to say / ask once I've looked at those. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
To a first approximation this appears to have something to do with the relative weakness of gravity compared to the weak force. This is, I gather, highly unexpected because it involves some delicate cancellations (presumably delicate to about 32 decimal places). And I also gather this is connected with renormalisation, which (if I remember correctly) involves cancelling out infinities that might arise from, for example, point charges (see Tronnies for more on this subject :-) by shielding them with virtual particles. The amount of shielding that can be produced depends on which particles are available to virtualise out of the vacuum, so supersymmetry (for example) provides a lot of extra particles which I assume can contribute to a much larger amount of cancellation than would otherwise be possible... ...or am I barking up the wrong space-time foliation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
To a second approximation, the afore-mentioned cancellation can be made very exact by giving each particle a partner which exactly balances its contribution (or words to that effect). These are the superpartners, and give a fermion for each known boson and vice versa. Since fermions and bosons have opposite effects in renormalisation, these could be made to cancel out exactly if these were identical apart from their spins. But since these superpartners haven't been observed they must have a greater mass than their mundane partners, this being a broke symmetry. However they can still cancel to high precision... ...unless I am still barking up the wrong branch of the Feynman diagram, of course. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
Or even a broken symmetry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse
But they cannot cancel to high precision if the symmetry is broken On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Or even a broken symmetry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
