Widdekind

By analogy to Strong interactions, wherein quarks "extrude" gluons that "carry off" the quarks' color charges, perhaps in Weak interactions, fermions "extrude" W-bosons, that "carry off" the fermions' electric charges ?? And, by analogy, to gluons consisting of anticolors & colors, and "breaking" between them, into antiquarks & quarks, perhaps W-bosons consist of antineutrinos & neutrinos, and "break" between them, into typical W-boson decay products ?? If so, then would the "anti-screening effect", of electrons "extruding" their electric charges, "out to a Weak-arms' length away", i.e. ~0.01fm, help with "renormalization", of all the infinities arising, from viewing electrons as point particles ? I.e. if electrons actually "emanated" their electric charges, out to 10-2fm, would that "soften" the EM self-energy, of electrons, per the short-range "asymptotic freedom", of non-Abelian gauge fields, like the Weak & Strong interactions ? If Weak bosons have rest-masses [math]E_0 = m_0 c^2[/math], then is not the range, of the Weak interaction, calculated according to: [math]\Delta t \approx \frac{\hbar}{\Delta E}[/math] [math]\Delta E = \gamma E_0[/math] [math]r = v t = c \Delta t \left( 1 - \left( \frac{E_0}{\Delta E} \right)^2 \right)^{1/2}[/math] [math]= \frac{\hbar c}{\Delta E} \left( 1 - \left( \frac{E_0}{\Delta E} \right)^2 \right)^{1/2}[/math] [math]= \frac{\hbar c}{\Delta E^2} \left( \Delta E^2 - E_0^2 \right)^{1/2}[/math] [math]= \frac{\hbar c}{E_0} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2 - 1}}{x^2}[/math] [math]\therefore r = \frac{\hbar c}{E_0} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2 - 1}}{x^2} [/math] That function can be plotted, e.g. at the Wolfram Alpha website. The range r(x) is maximized, for [math]x = \sqrt{2}[/math], when r(x) = r0/2, and declines slowly with increasing x thereafter. If the rest-mass energy, of Weak bosons, is ~80 GeV, then why isn't the Weak interaction most strongly observed, in particle colliders, "tuned" to ~120 GeV ??

According to Nambu's book Quarks, quark triplets, in baryons, are best imagined, as connected together, via string-like bonds, to a common center: Now, I understand, that quarks "extrude" glue, which "carries away" the quarks' colors. For example, a red quark [math]q_r[/math] exists in a super-position: [math]<q_r> \approx \frac{1}{3}q_r : g_{\bar{r}r} + \frac{1}{3}q_y : g_{\bar{y}r} + \frac{1}{3}q_b : g_{\bar{b}r}[/math] [math]\approx q_W : g_{\bar{W}r}[/math] [math] = q_W : g_{Br}[/math] I.e. the quark essentially "blanches", into a "white" super-position state, wherein the quark is equally likely to be "red", "yellow" or "blue", i.e. the quark "is as much one color as any other", and so is effectively "white". Likewise, the anti-colors, of the gluons emitted, being "anti-red (green)", "anti-yellow (purple)", or "anti-blue (orange)", also sum, in super-position, to "anti-white (black)": Thus, three such quarks, in a color-neutral triplet, in a baryon, are effectively in the state: [math]<q_r> + <q_y> + <q_b> \approx q_W : g_{Br} + q_W : g_{By} + q_W : g_{Bb}[/math] When gluon bonds "break", they "rip" at the "juncture", between the anti-color & color: [math]g_{\bar{c}c} \rightarrow \bar{q}_{\bar{c}} + q_c[/math] So, assuming spherical symmetry, the structure of a nucleon, per this picture, is a little like that of our earth: White "crust" -- color-neutral "skin" of "bag" in "bag model", wherein quarks emerge (when glue bonds break) Black "mantle" -- anti-color-neutral interior of "bag", wherein anti-quarks emerge (when glue bonds break) White "core" -- color-neutral center of "bag", wherein original quark triplet resides, "extruding" glue If so, then quarks "greet each other at arms length", "extruding" their colors into gluons, and "shaking hands" ~1fm away, not "hugging" up close. Is that what Nambu implied, in his book ? If so, then quarks in nucleons, are a little like "bungee bulls" at amusement parks: Is such a scenario what accounts for "asymptotic freedom", wherein quarks do not Strongly interact, deep in the central "core" regions of nucleons, but rather only when they are "jostled" nearer to the "surface", i.e. "skin of the bag" ??

If the 'Weak Hyper-Charges', of the fundamental quanta, are [math]Y_W \equiv 2 ( Q - T_3 )[/math], then apparently, if only for left-handed fermions: [math]Y_{W,u} = 1/3[/math] [math]Y_{W,d} = 1/3[/math] [math]Y_{W,\nu} = -1[/math] [math]Y_{W,e} = -1[/math] So, apparently, all (left-handed) quarks interact Weakly, with a "Weak Charge", of 1/3. And, all leptons interact Weakly, with a "Weak Charge" of -1. For example, neutrinos carry the same Weak Charge as electrons, but carry no EM Charge. Now, if, in the EM & Strong interactions, "like repels like" whilst "opposites attract"; then does that imply, that quarks repel themselves Weakly, and leptons repel themselves Weakly, but quarks attract leptons Weakly ?? For right-handed fermions, [math]T = 0[/math]. So, the 'Weak Hyper-Charges', of those fundamental quanta, would be [math]Y_W \equiv 2 ( Q - T_3 ) = 2 Q[/math]: [math]Y_{W,u} = 4/3[/math] [math]Y_{W,d} = -2/3[/math] [math]Y_{W,\nu} = 0[/math] [math]Y_{W,e} = -2[/math] But, right-handed fermions, having no "weak isospin", "do not undergo weak interactions", implying that their effective [math]Y_W = 0[/math]. Since [math]Y_W[/math] is conserved in all reactions, i.e. is a "good quantum number", then when left-handed fermions enter into Weak interactions, they must emerge from those interactions left-handed, e.g. neutrinos which approach an interaction left-handed, i.e. spin directed anti-parallel to momentum, they must not "spin flip" upon absorbing or emitting Weak bosons; or, at least if they do "spin flip", to account for the S=1 of the W-bosons, then their momenta must also change direction too. Does this mean, that when a neutrino approaches a down quark, that the emission of a W- boson from the latter, to the former, reverses both of their spins (to account for the emission / absorption, of an S=1 quanta), and so reverses both of their momenta as well (to preserve the left-handed, anti-parallel, relation, between spin & momenta) ???????????????? [math]\left( \downarrow \nu_e \right) \rightarrow \leftarrow \left( d \uparrow \right)[/math] [math]\left( \downarrow \nu_e \right) \rightarrow \leftarrow W^{-} \; \left( \downarrow u \right) \rightarrow[/math] [math]\leftarrow \left( e^{-} \uparrow \right) \; \left( \downarrow u \right) \rightarrow[/math] I guess the exchange, of a super-massive 80 GeV Weak boson represents a large momentum transfer, so that both previously impinging particles "bounce back" from the interaction, having had both their angular momenta, and linear momenta, reversed ?? Note, too, that, for all of the EW bosons, [math]T_3 = Q[/math], so that [math]Y_W = 2(Q - T_3) = 0[/math], i.e. explicitly: [math]Y_{W,W^{+}} = 0[/math] [math]Y_{W,W^{-}} = 0[/math] [math]Y_{W,Z^0} = 0[/math] [math]Y_{W,\gamma^{\;}} = 0[/math] Does that imply, that, unlike gluons, W-bosons carry no Weak charge, and so cannot emit other W-bosons ??

GR may imply, that anti-matter anti-gravitates, i.e. "anti-matter curves the space-time fabric the other way", e.g. "anti-matter makes the rubber sheet bulge upwards". If so, and if matter-antimatter quanta pairs were "preserved", by the stretching of the space-time fabric, then the mutual repulsion, between all of the matter & antimatter, might offset, all of the attractions, amongst the matter, and (separately) amongst the anti-matter. The "popping into existence", of antimatter-matter quanta pairs, may represent the "emergence", of both "antimatter mountains" & "matter valleys", in the fabric of space-time, coming from, and causing, zero net curvature.

If Weak Force bosons allow all fundamental "particle" quanta, to inter-convert amongst themselves; then, perhaps above the Electro-Weak Unification Temperature ~100GeV, all of those quanta would exist, in an equilibrium state, where they, collectively, were equally likely, to be "anything & everything". Such would be a "quark-gluon-lepton-W-boson-photon-plasma". That would not represent a state, in which all fundamental Forces were effectively unified ?

When quarks interact, via the Strong Force, the exchanged gluon changes the "colors" of both quarks. Seemingly, an initially "red" quark, "exudes" its "red-ness", into a gluon, which the other quark absorbs, so becoming "red". Now, when particles interact, via the Weak Force, the exchanged W boson changes the "charges" of both particles. So, an initially "negative" electron, "extrudes" its "negative-ness", into a W-boson, which the other neutrino absorbs, so becoming "negative". So, is there an additional "Weak Color" that also changes? Note, the Weak Force, like the Strong Force, is a short-ranged force, modeled mathematically as a "non-Abelian gauge field" (Nambu. Quark). Does that imply, that the Weak Force grows with distance; or evidences asymptotic freedom & infra-red-slavery; or that W/Z bosons can generate other W/Z bosons, i.e. is "EM glue" ?

Indeed, matter attracts matter, and anti-matter attracts anti-matter. However, the former may repel from the latter. If anti-matter anti-gravitated, w.r.t. normal matter, then you could "evaporate" black holes, by pumping them full of anti-matter. Also, naively, if our cosmos is closed, then our space-time fabric has a "curvature preference", and is not flat. And, naively, such a "curvature preference" sounds similar, to the "matter preference", over anti-matter, if the two "curve in opposite directions". For, matter would curve space, in the "same way" as space was already curved, like a bump, on a ball. Whereas anti-matter would curve space, "the wrong way", like trying to put a dent, into a ball. And, the degree of matter-over-anti-matter preference, is measured by the baryon-to-photon ratio (since the photons were generated, by the complete annihilation, of all of the anti-matter). So, perhaps the implication is, that the baryon-to-photon ratio, reflects the degree of global curvature, at the epoch of nucleo-synthesis, i.e. if NS had occurred, when the "ball" of space-time was small, with a small radius-of-curvature, that large curvature would have brooked hardly any anti-matter to have formed "the wrong way", so few photons, from annihilations, would have been generated, and the B2P ratio would have been higher, et vice versa ?

roughly 1000 tons? that would be allot of graphene, to try to "actively read", so I see now why they use detectors that "notify" the experimenters. Why is it so hard to detect, when neutrinos "alchemize" matter, i.e. when nuclei are "driven around the Periodic Table" ? Or, why is it so hard to detect, the electrons / anti-electrons, which are "blown out" of the nuclei, by the "impacting" neutrinos ? rotated within a (slightly larger) water tank, i.e. neutrally buoyant detector tank inside a larger secondary tank ?? You could use a rectangular tank, as a "super-large CCD pixel".

According to the book Quarks, by Nambu, the Weak Force, via charged W+/-, allows the inter-conversion between quarks & leptons: [math]d + \bar{u} \rightarrow W^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math] and inter-conversions, between "generations" of particles: [math]s + \bar{u} \rightarrow W^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math] [math]\mu^{-} + \bar{\nu}_{\mu} \rightarrow W^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math] Note that the "decay", of a strange quark s, into an up quark u (and some leptons), may be imaginable, as an s quark, initially bound into a baryon (say), breaking a "gluon string" bond, with a neighboring quark, so that the gluon "splits" into [math]s \approx u \; \rightarrow \; s \approx \bar{u} + u \approx u[/math]. Then, the [math]s \approx \bar{u}[/math] meson emerges from the nucleon, similar to a [math]\pi^{-}[/math] meson emission; and then "implodes" into a W- boson, which decays into leptons, i.e. [math]s \approx \bar{u} \; \rightarrow \; W^{-} \; \rightarrow \; e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math], which race away. QUESTION: If the Weak Force already allows inter-conversions "up down & across" the Standard Model particle table, then why doesn't the Weak Force already serve as a "unifying force", i.e. at 100 GeV, i.e. 1015K, (W boson rest-mass) "everything can become anything" (albeit by particle pairs, via W bosons) ? Perhaps at 100 GeV, when particles were colorless-leptons as often as quarks, then the 'Quark-Gluon-Plasma' really would "vaporize", and stop behaving like a "cold liquid", and more like the expected "hot gas", cp. RHIC only generates temperatures of 4TK ~ few tenths GeV ?? I see no reason, for imparsimoniously proposing additional, hypothetical, bosons & forces, e.g. having hypothetical charges of +4/3, when "already on-the-shelf, already known-to-exist" bosons & forces, can already account, for all desired inter-particle conversions.

Erwin Schroedinger originally viewed a quanta's "Wave Function" as the physical entity, i.e. fundamental "particles" are not actually "really small billiard balls", but "cloud-like balls of quantum play-do", that can spread out, contract, be squeezed, push apart, etc.

In magnetostatics, the force transmitted, between two particles, is proportional, not only to the charges, and the inverse square of the distance, but also to the particles' velocities: [math]F \propto \frac{q^2}{r^2} \beta_1 \beta_2[/math] How is that additional, velocity, dependence modeled, or explained, in the virtual photon picture ? To generate that 'solenoidal' field, would require currents, of moving charges, revolving around the central axis of the magnet, according to the 'right-hand rule'. As it happens, those currents generate, outside the solenoid, magnetic field lines that are more-or-less oriented along that same axis. And, the magnetic force [math]F \propto v \times B[/math], for any test-charge velocity, generates forces that also 'revolve around' those field lines, i.e. test charges spiraling around the field lines, would "mimic the motion", of the generating charges, in the solenoid, which are spiraling around the central axis. Thus, the virtual photons emanated, from the central, spiraling, generating charges, some-how evoke a "sympathetic motion", induced into neighboring charges, so that they "replicate" the motions, of the generating charges.

gluons, carrying "color", can generate more gluons. And, according to "infra-red slavery" -- the inverse of "asymptotic freedom" -- the color-force is weak, at low-frequencies, which I understand to imply "zero force at 'DC' (f=0)". Thus, could you not, in theory, "draw out strings of glue", by super-slowly separating quarks ? As each "string of glue" stretched to its maximum length of a few fm, the gluon(s) would generate another gluon, lengthening the "string". If so, then, in theory, if you stretched quarks apart super-slowly, e.g. over aeons & aeons, you could super-slowly stretch out a "string" of glue, a little like drawing out a fiber of nylon, from its 'soup'. (In a sci-fi analogy, qualitatively, cp. the quote from Dune, "the slow blade gets through", even when fast strikes encounter hard deflector shields. If you work at super-low frequencies, the quarks barely notice you, only if you try to work quickly does the color force "crack down".)

According to Dr. Michio Kaku, in Sci-Fi Science - How to Build a Starship, "negative energy" is generated, in the Casimir effect, by the "exclusion" of virtual photons, from the cavity, between two conducting plates. Inside that cavity, ambient vacuum energy is excluded, creating a region of relative "negative energy".

"pencil lead" is denser than water, which is used in current neutrino detectors, yes? I don't know how to "catch" individual neutrinos, but current detectors passively rely, on "being notified", by the high-energy electron/positron, which emerges from nuclei, after they absorb neutrinos, i.e. "the neutrinos rip out a unit of charge, and emerge electrons". Thus, such detectors require both a neutrino capture, and a subsequent observation. And, once they "notify" their environment, they "forget" and go back to the way they were. If you could construct a "solid state" neutrino detector, which "recorded" neutrino capture events, then you could make a "neutrino CCD", and take (long) exposures, to form "neutrino images". Some day, a "neutrino picture" may appear on APOD. Perhaps you could gather angular resolution, by repeatedly re-orienting your "neutrino CCD plate". When the plate fully faced the source, maximum counts would occur. When the plate was perpendicular to the source, minimum counts would occur. Also, I understand, that, via Weak Force interactions, quarks can change their "flavors", or "generations", e.g. [math]s \rightarrow u + e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math]. I also understand, that exiting anti-particles, can be "flipped to the other side of the equation", as incident particles, i.e. [math]\nu_e + s \rightarrow u + e^{-}[/math]. Theoretically, perhaps "hyperonic matter", with exotic quarks, has a super-large neutrino capture cross-section ??? Perhaps stabilized "hyperon" states could be constructed, which would readily interact with neutrinos ???

Imagine an electron e- approaching a proton p+, at a distance [math]\Delta X[/math] away. The EM force, between those charged particles, is said to be mediated, by virtual photons, "borrowed into existence on a Heisenberg loan", according to the HUP. Now, naively, that EM force would plausibly be: [math]F = \frac{dp}{dt} \approx \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t} \approx \frac{\hbar}{\Delta X} \frac{c}{\Delta X} \rightarrow \frac{\hbar c}{r^2}[/math] Such symbols seem to "say", that the virtual photons exchanged, between a pair of charged particles: have a characteristic wavelength, comparable to the particle separation distance, i.e. [math]\lambda \approx \Delta X[/math] are exchanged at a rate, comparable to the (inverse) light-crossing time, i.e. [math]c \Delta t \approx \Delta X[/math] Such a combination of effects could account, for an "inverse-square law", for EM, i.e. as charged particles approach each other, they exchange more energetic virtual photons, more frequently, i.e. "stronger x faster = inverse-square-law". However, the actual strength, of the EM interaction, between pairs of charged particles, is much weaker, than the above "theoretical Quantum maximum": [math]F_{actual} = \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} = \alpha \frac{\hbar c}{r^2}[/math] where [math]\alpha = 1/137[/math] is the FSC, i.e. the EM interaction coupling strength. Thus, this simple picture qualitatively accounts, for the "Quantum weakness" of EM, being only [math]\approx 0.007[/math] of the theoretical maximum interaction strength. QUESTION: Does this analysis imply, that as an electron approaches a proton, so that their separation distance decreases, then the virtual photons "flitting back-and-forth between them" increase in ("borrowed") energy -- until if-and-when the particles approach closely enough, so that those virtual photons become energetic enough, to "carry away" all of the energy needed, i.e. "13.7eV + KE0", for the e- + p+ to bond, into H ? Do the virtual photons then become "promoted", "actualizing" into real photons, and "carrying off" the correct amount of energy, to leave the electron "perfectly bound" onto the proton ? Note, that whilst the "strength" of a real photon is [math]E = hc/\lambda[/math], the "strengths" of "Heisenberg-borrowed" virtual photons are only [math]E \approx \alpha \hbar c / \lambda[/math], i.e. virtual photons are "enfeebled" by a factor of [math]2 \pi \alpha \approx 860[/math]. Thereby, whilst a real "promoted" photon, of energy E=14eV, has a wavelength near 900 A, virtual "ghost" photons only carry that much energy, when the charges are separated by a distance of about 1 A. Were it not, for the "enfeeblement", of the virtual photons, mediating the EM interaction, electrons would be "pushed around" by 14eV virtual photons, whilst still thousands of atomic radii away, from the protons.

What about using "layered sheets of graphene", oriented to "face" the neutrino source, and which could be separately STEM'd ? Or, a large graphene sheet, "rolled up", into a solid-and-dense cylinder, but which could be "unrolled" & STEM'd ? Or, what about NMRI, for full interior scanning, of a 3D target ? Cannot defect-less graphene sheets be manufactured ?

I offer, that as soon as a proto-planetary disk forms, i.e. even when shrouded in a still-dense envelope; then proto-planets can-and-do form, i.e. if the central proto-star is clumping up, then proto-planets are clumping up, too: The masses of all those clumps would determine how the system developed, i.e. as a multi-star binary/trinary system; as a single star-hot-jupiter system; as a star with planetary system, etc.

Consider a perfect (diamond) crystal lattice of carbon. Incident neutrinos would "alchemize" the C --> N. And, the N would induce defects, in the crystal lattice, which could be detected, e.g. w/ STEMs. Thus, could you not create a "solid state" neutrino detector, and simply expose it to some neutrino source; wait a while; then come back and "count the defects", divide by the detection time, and so have a neutrino detector ??

Observationally, humans have detected comparatively few 'Intermediate Mass Black Holes' (IMBH), having masses of a thousand to a million solar masses, in the centers of galaxies. For example, only three dozen IMBHs (so defined) have been detected, amidst half-a-million galaxies analyzed. And, this dirth of IMBHs, i.e. an 'IMBH desert', between numerous stellar-mass BHs & numerous galactic-mass SMBH, suggests that SMBH form via some sort of "direct collapse" scenario, above a mass threshold near a million solar masses -- as opposed to some sort of "gradual growth" scenario, which would presumably produce a continuous distribution of BH masses, rather than the observed 'bimodal' distribution (SciAm 2012, cp. SciAm 2012) Now, the observed 'IMBH desert', of MBH~103-6Msun objects, corresponds, according to the '0.1% rule', to an observed dirth, of M~106-9Msun spheroidal galaxy objects, i.e. the observed 'gap', between Globular Clusters (GC,UCD) of 105-7Msun, and small Ellipticals & spiral Bulges (CE) of 109-10Msun: "rogue SMBHs" are indicated, according to where their presumed 'un-imploded' precursor "super-GCs" would have resided (Mo. Galaxy Formation & Evolution, p.58) Now, small spheroidal galaxy components, i.e. disk-less 'Compact Ellipticals' & spiral Bulges (CE), of absolute bolometric magnitude MB>-18, typically do not have central SMBHs. Instead, such CEs typically have central, compact, 'Nuclear Star Clusters' (NSC), which obey the same '0.1%' scaling relation, as the SMBHs, in bigger-and-brighter E galaxies, of MB<-18, suggesting that both NSCs, and SMBHs, stem from the same source. Thus, the transition dwarfish to full-sized Es, in the above figure, typically represents a parallel & qualitative transition, from central NSC, to central SMBH -- i.e. CE = GC + star halo, E = SMBH + star halo. Note, for a given mass-to-light ratio, a 1000x increase in mass, translates to 7.5 magnitudes. Thus, that explains the 'gap' between GCs & bulges, corresponding to the 'gap' between GC/UCDs of MB>-10, and CEs of MB~-17, in the above figures. Now, presuming a hierarchical formation of structures, smaller CEs would merge, to make larger Es. And, in parallel, the compact NSCs in the CEs, must merge, into single central SMBHs, in resulting Es. Therefore, there is an apparent transition, near MB~-18, Mgal~109Msun, MBH~106Msun, above which E galaxies host central SMBHs, and below which CE dwarf galaxies still host central NSCs. Such suggests, that compact star clusters, which are typically R~5-10pc in size, become gravitationally unstable, at masses >106Msun, above which threshold, they 'implode', forming SMBHs, by a "direct collapse" mechanism (cp. discover 2009). Note that million solar mass BHs have 'radii of influence' r = GMBH/<v*>2 ~5 pc (Ryden. Foundations of Astrophysics, p.480). Perhaps, then, compact clusters of stars 'implode' when their masses increases to a 'threshold', where-at the radius-of-influence, of an equally-massive BH, is comparable to the actual size, of said star cluster? And now, if compact star clusters can exist on their own, e.g. GCs & UCDs, up to that maximum mass threshold of a million solar masses; then perhaps 'imploded' star clusters, i.e. "rogue SMBHs", can also exist, on their own, above that mass threshold ? If so, then the 'gap', between UCDs, and CEs, could be occupied by "dark objects", i.e. "rogue SMBHs", of millions to billions of solar masses, yet existing independently, i.e. without a surrounding stellar halo:

Please ponder the following "beta-decay" reaction: [math]p^{+} + \bar{\nu}_e \rightarrow n^0 + e^{+}[/math] So, if you propelled a powerful beam, of anti-neutrinos [math]\bar{\nu}_e[/math], into a star, then would you convert protons to neutrons? And, then, would those neutrons not fuse, with remaining protons, ultimately into helium nuclei?? So, could you not "stimulate" fusion, inside stars, and produce powerful "pulses" of helium production, i.e. generating an artificially-induced super-novae explosion (possibly powered by positron-electron annihilations too) ??

Could you build a big "cargo-net", of metal cables, to create a radio-reflective "rigging", which could be adjusted, similar to the sails of ships ?? For, if suspension bridges can be built, with vaguely similar "riggings", of metal cables, spanning distances of many km; then one could plausibly build radio "net" antennae many miles across. And, such a "rigging" of cable "netting" could be adjusted, to reshape the "net", and thereby steer the aperture.

If energy does not gravitate, then spontaneous, exo-thermic, energy-releasing, mass-destroying reactions (e.g. chemical bonding, nuclear fusing) "flatten" the fabric of space-time. Would that then imply, that space-time "hates" being curved, and "wants" to flatten out, and "pressures" massive particles to convert mass-to-energy ?? If so, then the "desire" of space-time fabric to "flatten" could possibly also account, for the spreading of wave-functions (curvature is caused by density, decreasing density, via WF spreading, flattens the fabric of space-time).

That small proto-galaxy, undergoing an intense burst of star-formation, resides at redshift z~7. At precisely that epoch, cosmic Re-ionization occurred, cosmically "quickly", in <200 Myr: And, said Re-ionization can plausibly be attributed, to massive bursts of star-formation:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html If anti-matter has anti-mass, then anti-matter would plausibly "curve space the opposite way" to matter. And if so, then the "combusting" combination, of anti-matter & matter, would plausibly "cancel out the space curvatures", leaving behind only flat space, as per Rudy Rucker's proposal, per OP. If so, then only rest-mass would plausibly gravitate; and, energy would plausibly not gravitate. If so, then the "destructive combustion" of large amounts of matter, into energy, via nuclear processes, over the age of our universe, would plausibly have reduced the gravitating matter density, inside our space-time fabric, i.e. by a factor of ~e<Z> (fusion efficiency x cosmic metal mass fraction), i.e. ~(0.007)x(0.007)=5e-5. If so, how would a declining matter density affect the evolution, of a FRW cosmological model? For example, if our universe was "born" closed, with a slight over-critical-density; and if our universe then started "losing matter", via fusion in stars; then, would not our universe begin to "balloon outward", cp. Rcurvature~DH/sqrt( over-density ). Is that what to which the article is referring, when suggesting, that the proposed anti-gravity of anti-matter could account for the "extra expansion" of space-time, presently attributed to 'Dark Energy' ?? For example, if it so happened, that our universe was "born" with an over-critical-density of ~5e-5; then, natural mass-destroying fusion in stars would have expanded our universe, from "closed", to "flat-and-open", i.e. the expansion of the space-time fabric would look like it was "accelerating", yes ??

Thanks for the links... they discuss how the first SMBH grew (and, grew quickly); yet, I was asking, about how they formed (collapse of large star clusters??): More than half of detected SMBH are heavily obscured, in enshrouding dust & debris, "black holes must be hidden behind large quantities of dust and gas from their host galaxies" (science daily 2011, science daily 2011). That is what a "wet collapse" scenario would resemble.