Widdekind

According to a quick & cursory skimming, of Frank Close's [Very Short Introductions] Particle Physics (pp. 99-101), the decay of the Z0 boson "proves" that there are only three (3) "generations" of matter. For, were there more matter "generations", the Z0 particles would have additional decay pathways, which would make the decay of those bosons "easier", and, hence, more rapid -- in dramatic disagreement with both theory & observation. QUESTION: The Z0 bosons mass 91 GeV/c2... could there be additional "generations" (of "excited hyper-states"??), if their energy levels were greater than 91 GeV/c2 (so that the decay of Z0 would be energetically impossible) ?? Could these decay states be seen, from the decay of "high-energy relativistic" Z0 bosons ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNeutrinos are "empty" quanta of Curvature of spacetime; Photons are Curvature quanta "housing" electro-magnetic fields (inside spacetime); Particles are Curvature quanta "housing" matter (inside spacetime) Fig 1 -- Neutrinos rarely interact with matter (inside spacetime), b/c "all they are" are "empty" Curvature distortions of spacetime (?). When free Electron "binds" around Proton, Photon "carries away" excess energy & Curvature (?) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNeutrinos "Curvature Quanta" detectable, from phase variations, induced in (suitably sensitive) detector lasers ? Fig 1 -- If Neutrinos are "quanta of Curvature", in fabric of spacetime, could they be detected by "Gravitometric"-like means, wherein suitably sensitive laser detectors could record the phase differences, induced in the laser beams, by the distortions of spacetime fabric, as the Neutrino traveled through the detector (lengthening of laser beam paths, through "distended" spacetime of "blister" of Neutrino) ? To wit, could you detect the presence of Neutrinos, w/o actually having to "catch" them ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Hyper-excited" particles occupy "swollen" spacetime, "puffed up" along hyper-dimension Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sci-Am "Through Neutrino Eyes" discusses Neutrino Flavor Oscillation. According to the article, the Neutrino "Mass" eigenstates ([math]\nu_{1,2,3}[/math]) are not the same as the Neutrino "Flavor" eigenstates ([math]\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}[/math]). These differences can be easily explained, by appealing to increasing amounts of spacetime Curvature (for "mass") and Hyper-thickness (for "flavor"). Neutrino "Mass" eigenstates are quanta of "increasing spacetime Curvature" Neutrino "Flavor" eigenstates are quanta of "increasing spacetime Hyper-thickness" Uploaded with ImageShack.us Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAccording to said cited Sci-Am article, when Neutrinos ([math]\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}[/math]) hit neutrons in nuclei, they can knock out Electron-like particles ([math]e^{-},\mu,\tau[/math]). QUESTION ONE: Might this mean, that the Down quarks in neutrons, are really Up quarks bound up with Electrons ([math]d^{-1/3} = u^{+2/3} + e^{-1}[/math]) ? (Like Quarks, Electrons have spin 1/2; and, grouping several spin 1/2 Quarks together can create another spin 1/2 nucleon; so, grouping an Electron & (Up) Quark could create (yet) another spin 1/2 particle (?).) QUESTION TWO: If Down quarks are "composite particles", could you separately "Hyper-excite" each sub-particle part ? For example, could a Strange quark, be an "un-Hyper-excited Up quark" and a "singly Hyper-excited 'muon' electron" ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCLARIFICATION: Based upon the 1D Square Well analogy, "excited Hyper-states" of particles, do not represent "puffed up spacetime", but "puffed up particle Wave Functions" (along hyper-dimension). (Otherwise, in a Strange quark, the (allegedly) un-hyper-excited Up quark, would be embedded inside the "puffed up spacetime", and could "flop around", which would surely have dramatic & observable effects.)

If Neutrinos have a non-zero rest-mass, perhaps of roughly 1.5 eV, then couldn't Neutrinos exist... at rest ?? And, if so, couldn't they "clump", into "Neutrino planets" and "Neutrino stars" (as it were) ?? Could that explain Dark Matter ? At only ~1 eV per particle, the self-gravity of Neutrinos might be so weak, they their distribution would be continuously "stirred up", by the motions of planets & stars in galaxies. Could Earth, or our Solar System, be passing through a "thick fog" of cold, and nearly uniformly distributed, Neutrinos ??

Imagine, momentarily, that 2nd & 3rd "generation" particles, are really the "excited hyper-states" of standard 1st generation particles. And, that at sufficiently high energies, particles can not only be "excited", but actually "ionized" out into hyperspace. QUESTION: Imagine rolling back time, towards the Big Bang. At some early era, temperatures would be so high... that all the matter across the Cosmos would become "excited", and then "ionized" out into hyperspace, yes ? Back in forward time, mass-energy would have been "pouring into spacetime", from hyperspace, like some sort of "flash flood" pouring off the desert plateaus surrounding the Nile River (1D "Lineland"), down into the river valley (w/ appropriate thunderous roar, etc.).

According to Carroll & Ostlie's Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Birkhoff's Theorem can be written in the form: [math]\frac{d^{2}R}{dt^{2}} = - \frac{4 \pi G \rho R}{3}[/math] Thus, this might mean, that every "cell" (xijk) in the simulation would have it's own Scale Factor (Rijk). If so, cells that started off over-dense, would gravitationally contract more, whilst expanding less, "doubly" boosting their (Over-)Density Contrasts. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAccording to Wikipedia, the "Birkhoff's Theorem equation" (as it were), with a Cosmological Constant ([math]\Lambda[/math]), and gas pressure term (p), is:

Planets are much dimmer than stars. Perhaps, then, you could do a "Hubble Deep Field" type, Long Duration image, of targeted star systems ? Blocking the light, from the central star, by standard means ("artificial eclipses"), such a "Planet-Finder Deep Field" might image many dim planets, perhaps as "arc-like" smears across the image, from the light accumulated over many days, weeks, or even months. Moreover, imagine training an "phalanx" of telescopes, each observing a different EM spectrum, at the same star system. Then, you could create, in composite, an "all spectrum telescope", which would image the target star system in everything from Radio to X-Ray (say). Such would "drink down" as much light information, from said star system, as was available, as quickly as possible. Between both of these suggestions, you could create "composite All-Spectrum, Deep Field" images, of the Planetary Systems, of targeted star systems. Could such "long duration, broad band-pass" images maybe make up for the intrinsic dimness of planets ?

For [math]\mu_{min} = 0.06, \mu_{max} = 150[/math], choosing [math]\alpha \approx 13/3[/math] yields a Mass-to-Light ratio of roughly 7. Is it possible, that the IMF for stars is significantly "steeper" than usually estimated ?? If "Brown Dwarfs", being dim, were often overlooked, wouldn't that artificially make the IMF look far "flatter", reducing the "apparent index" down to [math]\alpha \approx 7/3[/math] ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCan the Hubble (Ultra, Double) Deep Fields detect Globular Clusters ?? Could there be sub-galactic scale structures, along the lines of Globular Clusters, in copious quantities across the Cosmos (enough to matter, for the Cosmic matter density) ??

"Burdened" Spacetime "sinks down", creating "Net Hyper-Force", which pulls masses together thru Space, and "downwards" thru Hyperspace Fig. 1 -- "Burdened" Spacetime is "depressed downwards" through Hyperspace dimension Fig. 2 -- In isolation, "Hyperspace Tensions" in Spacetime surrounding the star "cancel out", leaving said star "hanging in Hyperspace" w/o motion. But, the "burdened" Spacetime, by being "depressed downwards", now yields a "Net Hyper-(Tension-)Force", tugging the stars towards each other thru standard space, whilst allowing them to "sag", "down deeper", into Hyperspace. Fig. 3 -- Merged star "hangs down deeper" into Hyperspace, due to "downwards Hyper-Acceleration", from imbalanced Hyper-Tension-Forces.

The positively charged Up quark, has fewer, and more widely spaced, "bound Hyper-state" energy levels, than any of the negatively charged particles. Arguing from the 1D Square Well potential, this would result from a "narrower" potential well (along the "w" hyper-dimension). Thus, there seems to be some sort of "fundamental difference" between positively charged particles (Up quarks), and negatively charged particles (Down quarks, Electrons). Could positively charged particles be "thicker" in the "w" hyper-dimension, so that they "see" Spacetime as being (relatively) "narrower" ??

It seems to be said, fairly often, that "gravitationally bound objects experience no expansion of spacetime". For example, the incessant "stretching" of Spacetime does not "rip apart" our Solar System, nor our Galaxy, nor our Local Group. So, once a "glob" of matter becomes "gravity bound", the Spacetime it occupies (apparently) stops "stretching", and "freezes out" of the background Hubble Expansion. It is my understanding, that current computer simulations assume, for simplicity, a uniform "background" expansion rate, which uniformity they then "force" upon, & across, the whole simulation volume. It is under such simulated conditions, that "Dark Matter" is necessary, to keep confined all the baryonic matter. But, if it is true, that the Spacetime around gravity-bound objects stops stretching, then wouldn't "artificially forcing" a uniform stretching of Spacetime across the complete computational volume, including in particular the Spacetime occupied by said gravity-bound object, amount to imposing a false & fictitious force of "anti-gravity", which would work (errantly) to "rip apart" those objects in the simulations (making it look like more (dark)matter was needed) ?? What part of the picture am I misunderstanding ??

It seems to be said, fairly often, that "gravitationally bound objects experience no expansion of spacetime". For example, the incessant "stretching" of Spacetime does not "rip apart" our Solar System, nor our Galaxy, nor our Local Group. So, once a "glob" of matter becomes "gravity bound", the Spacetime it occupies (apparently) stops "stretching", and "freezes out" of the background Hubble Expansion. If so, perhaps archaic bound objects, like the early dwarf proto-galaxies (which were ~1% the mass of current galaxies) which formed in the first billion years of the Cosmos' existence, managed to "lock in" and "preserve" their local Spacetime fabric, in its original "un-stretched state" -- in particular, with its original & greater "hyperspace thickness" ??

The current Cosmic Curvature Radius (R) is roughly 100 Gpc. If so, then the "Cosmic Circumference" (2 π R) would be about 2 trillion light-years. So, to construct such a cross-Cosmic-scale Super System, and put it in place "in time", within the next few billion years (say), would apparently presume the ability to move matter around the Universe, at speeds of order 1000 c ("Mach 1000"). Inside of standard Spacetime, signals seem likely to be limited to 1 c ("Mach 1"). But, it could (conceivably) be the case, that the "hyper-velocity" of Spacetime, "outwards" through Hyperspace, might be about 25 c ("Mach 25") (see prior link). From such a pseudo-science-fiction stance, then, it could be the case, that Spacetime's "speed-limit" might compel one to "drive elsewhere" (thru Hyperspace — the early Universe expanded "outward" even faster !), were they want to fly faster ("if you cannot go through it, go around it" as it were). Note that the fabric of Spacetime, has "expanded outwards through Hyperspace", by ~100 Gpc, in ~13 Gyr — an average "hyper-velocity" of ~25 c, completely consistent, and of the same order of magnitude, as mentioned previously. Now, if the Cosmic expansion rate was slowing down, wouldn't Spacetime's average "hyper-velocity" (25 c) be greater than its current "hyper-velocity" (25 c)?? So, since the converse is the case, could that be construed, as evidence supporting the suggestion, that the expansion of Spacetime is actually accelerating ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf the "circumference" of Spacetime, is roughly 2 trillion light-years "around"... And, if Mankind can currently observe a Hubble Volume about 20 billion light-years across... Then, Mankind can currently detect about 1% of the complete Cosmos, along each spatial dimension... or about 10-6 of the 3D volume of the complete Cosmos (??). To wit, this might mean, that there are roughly 1 million Hubble Volumes — 1 million "Level 1 Parallel Universes" (HC Universe — Parallel Universes (TV)) — which, taken together, comprise this Cosmos. (Mankind's "intelligence" on the Universe, is "yesterday's news" about 1% of 1% of 1% of the complete Cosmos. "Creatively conjecturing" an "intelligence estimate", by "embellishing" known information, to craft a consistent conception of unknown information, one could be compelled to conclude, that the Cosmos' million Hubble Volumes house a million sentient species [maybe more, were we possessing "today's paper" on our own stretch of the sandbox].)

If the Hubble Constant [math]H = \frac{1}{R} \frac{dR}{dt} = 75 \; km \; sec^{-1} \; Mpc^{-1}[/math] and if the current Curvature Radius [math]R \approx 100 \; Gpc[/math] then can one conclude, that the "velocity of Spacetime outwards through Hyperspace" is [math]H \; R \approx 25\; c[/math] ? That is, the "Hyper-velocity of Spacetime, thru Hyperspace, is ~25 times the Speed-of-Light ('Mach 25')" ??

Imagine some simple particle, like an electron (say), which was excited along the "hyperspatial" dimension. It would "look like" a regular electron, in terms of charge & spin (say), but the extra energy pumped into the particle, to "pump it up" into its excited hyper-state, would mimic more mass. Thus, a "hyper-excited" electron, would look like a particle having charge -1, and spin 1/2.... but much more mass... to wit, it would look allot like a Muon (!!). Indeed, could not the whole Standard Model of Elementary Particles could be interpreted in terms of these "excited hyper-states", with the 2nd & 3rd "generations" of particles really representing the 2nd & 3rd bound-but-excited hyper-states ?? ??? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPerhaps put a bit boldly, assume as an Ansatz, that the "fabric", "film", or "membrane" of Spacetime exists at the bottom of a "Hyper-spatial Potential Well", along the "hyper-spatial dimension" (which we'll call "w"), perpendicular to Spacetime. Then, one could perhaps apply the equations, of the standard QM 1D Square Well, in the analysis of these (purported) "bound Hyper-states" seen in the Standard Model. Now, the (purported) "bound Hyper-states" of standard particles embody much more mass-energy than their corresponding ground states. For example, the Top quark, interpreted as the "second excited Hyper-state" of the Up quark, is over 71 thousand times more massive than its (purported) "ground state". So, seemingly, the "binding Hyper-energies" of standard particles dramatically dominate their mass-energies. Therefore, when applying the equations, from the 1D Square Well, we would reasonably "recursively require", that the "ground Hyper-state" energy (E0) is equal to the particle's apparent (rest-)mass-energy (m c2): [math]k_{i} = \sqrt{\frac{2 m E_{i}}{\hbar^{2}}} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \; m c^{2} \; E_{i}}{\hbar^{2} c^{2}}}[/math] [math]k_{0} = \sqrt{2} \frac{E_{0}}{\hbar c}[/math] [math]k_{i} = k_{0} \sqrt{\frac{E_{i}}{E_{0}}}[/math] Armed with this minor modification, we can write the 1D Square Well bound-energy-states equation as: [math]tan\left( \frac{k_{i} L}{2} \right) = \sqrt{\frac{V_{0}}{E_{i}} - 1} [/math] [math]V_{0} = E_{i} \left( 1 + tan^{2}\left( \frac{k_{i} L}{2} \right) \right) = E_{i} \; sec^{2}\left( \frac{k_{i} L}{2} \right) [/math] We can compare the "ground Hyper-state" and "first excited Hyper-state" (e.g., Up & Charm quarks), to eliminate one unknown (V0) and solve for the other (L): [math]E_{0} \; sec^{2}\left( \frac{k_{0} L}{2} \right) = V_{0} = E_{1} \; sec^{2}\left( \frac{k_{1} L}{2} \right)[/math] [math]\sqrt{ \frac{E_{1}}{E_{0}}} \; cos\left( \frac{k_{0} L}{2} \right) = cos\left( \sqrt{ \frac{E_{1}}{E_{0}}} \frac{k_{0} L}{2} \right)[/math] Now, the energies of standard particles' "first excited Hyper-states" are much larger than their "ground Hyper-states" (E1 >> E0). Thus, in the equation above, the LHS is allot larger than the RHS, except near its zero(es). So, for all the precision possibly & plausibly extractable from these equations: [math]\frac{k_{0} L}{2} \approx \frac{\pi}{2}[/math] [math]L \approx \frac{\pi}{k_{0}} = \frac{\pi \hbar c}{\sqrt{2} E_{0}}[/math] [math]L \approx \frac{h c}{2^{\frac{3}{2}} E_{0}}[/math] Since standard First Generation particles', interpreted as their "ground Hyper-states", have (rest-)mass-energies ranging from roughly 0.5 to 5 MeV, this formula suggests that the "hyper-thickness" of Spacetime is roughly 0.1 - 1.0 pm (10-13 - 10-12 m). However, the formula for the "hyper-potential energy" V0 seems super-sensitive to the particulars of the parameters, and estimates seem to range from a few GeV to hundreds of TeV.

The curvature of mass-free space-time is allot like the "compensating curvatures" (my words) of a soap film, drawn out between two circular hoops, held up in the air (Wheeler. Gravitation & Spacetime). Now, for a soap film to exist in space, the soapy water must be different from the medium in which it is immersed — to wit, whilst one could create soap films in the air or in a vacuum, one could not do so "under (soapy-)water". Arguing naively from the analogy, then, the "film" of space-time must be distinctly different from the "medium" of Hyperspace. Moreover, the shapes of soap films are created by the counter-balancing of Surface Tension forces threading thru the films. Arguing naively from the analogy, then, the "film" of space-time may have "hyper-surface tensions", which operate along the "surface skin" of space-time. Furthermore, spherical soap-bubbles' "self-shrinking" surface-tensions will cause them to collapse, unless they contain a pressure producing gas (like air). Arguing naively from the analogy, then, (interior) Hyperspace probably produces some sort of "hyper-pressure" which "balloons space outward". Finally, soap films (or bubbles) attract other soap films (or bubbles). When they come in contact, they can "pop together", to rejoin up into a single film (or bubble). This seemingly suggests the (super-speculative) possibility, of transporting matter, thru Hyperspace, inside of "pinched off bubbles" of space. If such a "space bubble", housing a fleet of spaceships (say), were to "pop on" to standard space, from (exterior) Hyperspace, it would surely cause a (brief?) artificial gravity well disturbance, pulling towards the point of contact, before the bubble "opened out", depositing the space-fleet at its destination (a Ray-Traced computer simulation of this would perhaps be pretty impressive, if only for imagination's sake): Using "singularity mines", wherein compressed collapsing matter makes "upward spiking" (artificial) Gravity Wells, one could (conceivably) "skewer" an inbound foe's fleet-housing "hyper-bubble", thereby "popping it open" into the mine's collapsing singularity: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Wierd World" super-speculative suggestion: If you can "pinch off" pieces of space fabric, forming "hyper-bubbles", then you could (conceivably) "pinch off" whole star systems, isolating or quarantining whole worlds as inescapable "prison planets", completely cut off from the rest of spacetime. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedArguing from the reciprocity of Matter & Spacetime, if Spacetime can exist w/o Matter... then can Matter exist w/o Spacetime ??

Since the "Big Bang", the fabric of Spacetime has "stretched", so much so, that the resulting expansion of the universe could be called the "Big Stretch" (Carroll & Ostlie. Intro. Mod. Astrophys.). Now, when any physical object stretches, it thins out. Thus, the fabric of Spacetime could (conceivably) have been "thicker", in the perpendicular Hyperspace "w" dimension, back when the universe was younger. Now, Variable Speed-of-Light Theories posit that the Speed of Light was significantly swifter in the early universe. Thus, it could (conceivably) be the case, that the Speed of Light is faster in "thicker" Spacetime. Furthermore, Plasmas produce Indexes of Refraction less than one (npl < 1). Thus, it could (conceivably) be the case, that Plasmas "puff up" Spacetime, "swelling" the same in the Hyperspace "w" dimension. If so, it could (conceivably) be the case, that denser & hotter (higher pressure) Plasmas produce more "swelling" of Spacetime. If so, it might then be possible, to construct a "Hyperspace laser", by building a "barrel", along which the Plasma pressure was gradually increased. This would increasingly "puff up" Spacetime, which would "swell out" into Hyperspace. Then, imagine that the high-pressure Plasma, at the far end of the barrel, could be contained, w/ sufficient strength, so that said Plasma "sharply & discontinuously" vanished into vacuum. In such a case, Spacetime would sharply & discontinuously "deflate", creating a condition, where the "skin" of Spacetime was practically "perpendicular" to the "plane" of Spacetime itself. Then, imagine injecting a sufficiently high-intensity laser, with a "photon-bunched" beam, into the barrel, directed from the "cold (low pressure) end" towards the "hot (high pressure) end". B/c of the gradually increasing "swelling" of Spacetime, along the length of the barrel, the "bunched" photons, "jostling cheek to jowl", could (conceivably) start to "fan out" across the increasingly swollen Spacetime. Finally, when the "bunched" beam reached the back of the barrel, the "fanned out" photons would impinge upon the "skin" of Spacetime, at some "steep angle". This they could (conceivably) penetrate, propagating outwards into Hyperspace, in a "leakage" of light. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe notion of plasma Pressure "puffing up" the fabric of space(time) could (conceivably) imply, that mechanical Pressure could create the same "swelling" effect, logically leading to the idea of a "Hyperspace press":

One could conceive, of Gravity Waves, on the "membrane" of standard spacetime, creating "sound pressure waves", in the "Hyperspace ether", in "interior Hyperspace". If so, such Gravity Waves would eventually impinge back upon the membrane of spacetime, "on the other side of space", where their "lapping" against spacetime, from (interior) Hyperspace, would appear to create "non-local" Gravitational disturbances: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If, from inside of a closed hyper-spherical spacetime, you could "eject" mass-energy from said spacetime, "out" into Hyperspace, then you could conceivably "open up" the closed hyper-spherical spacetime, into an unbounded hyper-cylindrical spacetime: From the Friedmann Equations, with a Cosmological Constant ([math]\Lambda[/math]), one sees that such a static universe contains more Mass-Energy, when it is "bigger" by virtue of having a larger Radius of Curvature (a): Thus, one could conceivably "maximize" the amounts, of Mass-Energy, as well as Spacetime itself, by "opening out" spacetime at the "equator" of the original hyper-sphere: Such a system, while requiring complete control of the whole Cosmos, could conceivably create a Cosmic-caliber "un-Doomsday Device" -- w/o which, the "whole show" would ultimately amount to a ~40 billion year "waste of time", when all information was destroyed, down to the Quantum level, in the (original) "Big Crunch". Such a "super system" would be most economically enacted, at the "equator" of spacetime, since such would minimize the amount of mass requiring the (presumably expensive) "Hyperspace ejection" processing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCould the Cosmological Constant ([math]\Lambda[/math]) come from this sort of "Hyperspace pressure" ?? To wit, would the fabric of spacetime act as some sort of "Hyperspace sail", which would "catch the wind" of Hyperspace particles, thereby accounting for the constancy of [math]\Lambda[/math] in every given volume ("hyper-area") of spacetime ("sail-surface") ?? It is my understanding, that the Cosmological Constant ([math]\Lambda[/math]) is "mathematically equivalent" to a 4D "Hyper-wind", impinging upon the 3D "Hyper-sail" membrane of space, and imparting something akin to a kind of "Force per (3D) volume". To wit, this "Hyper-wind" would not impinge upon any "time-space(-space) plaquettes" (Wheeler. Gravity & Spacetime.), but only "space-space(-space) plaquettes". If so, then the Cosmological Constant ([math]\Lambda[/math]) represents some sort of "space opacity" to the "Hyper-wind" — a little like the Neutrino Capture Cross-section for flows of neutrinos thru matter — w/o which, only matter embedded within space would "interact opaquely with Hyperspace" to produce curvatures which didn't cancel completely internally w/in space itself. One could "hyper-speculate" upon the existence of a "Hyper-star" dwelling at the "center" of (interior) Hyperspace, whose World-Line would over-lie the central Time Axis, and which was the source of the "Hyper(-stellar) wind" flux.

According to the video The Shape of Space (VHS), a 3D hyper-torus can be represented, by a "fundamental unit" cube of space, which is "glued" to itself, such that each pair of opposite sides are made to be mathematically contiguous & identical. Could you not, then, by suitable manipulations of the size, shape, and "boundary conditions", of computer simulations, simulate various topologies for spacetime (hyper-torus, hyper-sphere, etc) ?

The expansion of spacetime is commonly called "The Big Stretch" (Carroll & Ostlie. Intro. Mod. Astrophys.), and is often likened to the blowing up of a balloon. Musing naively from the analogy, balloons only blow up, when something provides an internal pressure, in excess of the surroundings. Speculation: The closed "3-Sphere" of spacetime is being "blown out like a balloon", by a radiation of "hyper-particles", emanating from "interior Hyperspace" (the hyper-space topogically inside of the hyper-sphere of spacetime). These "hyper-particles" impinge upon the "inside surface" of spacetime. As they "rain down" on spacetime, they produce a "pitter-patter" of small-scale curvature fluctuations, allot like repeatedly poking fingers into a trampoline. This perpetual "pitter-patter" imparts momentum, which manages to "push" spacetime "(hyper-)radially outward", from the "hyper-center", thereby accounting for the "ballooning up" expansion of spacetime, "out" towards "exterior Hyperspace". Prediction: This "hyperspace rain" hypothesis would predict that, at (presumably) small scales, fleeting curvature fluctions -- which would be observed as fleetingly ephemeral micro-gravity wells -- would be observed.

I recently read some books about General Relativity, and how the "3-Brane" of standard spacetime is curved through the higher dimensional "hyperspace" of "The Bulk" (to use some String Theorist terms, as I've been told them). One of the books suggested that standard spacetime, which is like a thin sort of "shell" curving through hyperspace, could conceivably have some sort of "hyperspace thickness" -- and, that this thickness could account for things like the Pauli Exclusion Principal. For example, electrons might be "half as hyper-thick" as spacetime, so that you could "stack" two of them "over" each other, in the same stretch of space. Conversely, photons might be very "hyper thin", so that many can pass thru the same stretch of space simultaneously. Likewise, the book Intro. to Mod. AstroPhys., by Carroll & Ostlie, stresses that the "Big Bang" has actually been much more like the "Big Stretch", and that spacetime has stretched considerably since its inception billions of years ago. Now, naively, when anything "stretches", it inevitably "thins" (e.g., Stress-Strain tests in engineering). And, the "thinner" that the 3-brane of standard spacetime becomes, the fewer electrons can "squeeze" into some stretch of space. So, consider some time period back billions of years ago, when spacetime was significantly less stretched, and so was twice as "hyper thick". Conceivably, then, the Pauli Exclusion Principal could have allowed twice as many -- to wit, four (4) -- electrons to "stack" in the same space. Is there any evidence for, or against, this ??

From Astronomy: A Visual Guide by Mark A. Garlick:

Is it possible, to intentionally engineer structures, to be "nano-sharp", by manipulating the electron orbitals, on the "leading edge" of that structure ?

According to the National Geographic Channel documentary 24 Hours After Impact (DVD), the KT Impactor hit the ground, at an angle, of 30° above the horizon, from the south-east. It seems most likely, that the impactor moved towards the Earth, through the Ecliptic Plane of our Solar System. Thus, working out the angles, this seems much more consistent, with either (1) a (pre-)midnight strike during the Northern Hemisphere summer; (2) a (pre-)noonday strike during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Is there a scientific consensus, on what time of day & year, the impact happened ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf massive (metallic) impactors penetrate planetary Crust, and sink through the Mantle into the Core, how much (more) energy do they dump in the interior ?? (1) Estimation of Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) of planet core vs. surface From the definition equation for GPE: [math]g \equiv - \frac{dU}{dr}[/math] [math]g = -\frac{G M_{<r}}{r^{2}}[/math] If the density is constant, then: [math]M_{<r} = \int_{0}^{r} 4 \; \pi \; x^{2} \; \rho \; dx = M_{tot} \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)^{3}[/math] Thus, [math]g = g_{surf} \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)[/math] and [math]\frac{dU}{dr} = g_{surf} \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)[/math] so [math]\Delta U = \int_{0}^{R} g_{surf} \left( \frac{r}{R} \right) \; dr = g_{surf} \; R \int_{0}^{1} x \; dx = \frac{1}{2} g_{surf} \; R = \frac{G \; M}{2 \; R}[/math] Since the surface GPE is already Usurf = -G M / R, which is half again that amount more than the core, we therefore have: [math]U_{core} = - \frac{3}{2} \frac{G \; M}{R}[/math] Since Earth's mass is actually more centrally concentrated than that, the central potential will be deeper. Thus, in round numbers, material sinking into the core, from the surface, releases roughly as much GPE as that same amount of mass, infalling from infinity, onto said surface. (2) Could sinking metallic impactors help heat the Earth's interior ?? Earth's interior heat is escaping, through its surface, into space, at the rate of roughly 10 kilotons-TNT per second (1 ton-TNT = 4e9 J = 4e16 erg): Now, according to Wikipedia, the KT Impactor "released the same energy as 100 trillion tonnes of TNT". If this amount of energy were released again, as the metals sank into the interior, then that energy (100 billion kilo-tons TNT) could have powered the whole planet's Geothermal Energy Budget (10 kilo-tons TNT per second) for roughly 300 years. Could this conceivably explain the presence of "Hot Spots" & "Mantle Plumes" ? Could Mantle Plumes be the "fiery trails" of ancient impactors, which cracked the Crust, penetrated into the planet, and sank (are still sinking???) into the interior ???

Testing Retrocausality -- an "Antiparticle Paradox" ? If an antiparticle is really a "regular particle moving backwards in time", then, in any series of measurements you apply to an antiparticle, it will "witness" the last of them first, and the first of them last (?!). Thus, as a potential 'paradox', perhaps it's possible to (1) observe the antiparticle, to determine its state ("spin up"); (2) some time later, manipulate that antiparticle, to be the opposite of that "previously" determined state ("spin down"). What would happen ?? EDIT: Actually, the "antiparticle paradox" is no paradox at all. For, if the antiparticle actually is "moving backwards in time", it would experience time "backwards". So, your "manipulation" to put the antiparticle in a "spin up" (say) state... would be seen by the antiparticle, in reverse, as your forcing it to go "spin down". Thus, your "observation ('spin down') & manipulation ('spin up')" would be perceived by the antiparticle, in reverse, as "manipulation ('spin down') & confirmatory observation ('spin down')". Thus, this author's suggested apparent "paradox" is no paradox at all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged From a "conventional perspective", such a "double-barreled electron-positron cannon" perhaps produces propulsion, from the ejection of pair of particles (?). From a "Retrocausal perspective", the "cannon" perhaps produces propulsion, "firstly" from the ejections of the electrons, which stream swiftly sternward from the spaceship... before "bouncing off the gamma-ray explosion" (rather roughly speaking)... and, then, "secondly", streaming swiftly "back aboard the spaceship by the other barrel" as positrons ("electrons moving backwards in time")... where they impart the "other half of the momentum" to your spaceship, as propulsion, as they "decelerate into a soft-landing in your positron fuel tank" when they interact with (what you think is your) "positron accelerator apparatus" (?). However, it seems to me, that the propulsion produced by such as system, would "wind up" being -- by whatever way one looked at it -- merely made by the ejection of the high-energy ions, essentially as in a standard Ion Drive. So, if you could already accelerate electrons to such high velocities & energies, there might not be much improvement made, by adding a "second positron barrel" to the design, over simply a "second electron barrel" (or, merely more electrons from the original thruster). So, a standard Ion Drive seems a sounder design.

Could you use particle accelerators, to accelerate that CoM frame, swiftly sternwards, relative to the spaceship ? woops, thanks !

Retrocausality can explain Quantum Entanglement from Pair Production (?) According to the brief mention of QM, in the special features section, of the movie Suspect Zero (DVD), "Quantum Entanglement is often observed during the production of pairs of particles" [close paraphrase]. For purposes of discussion, let us presume the appearance of an electron-positron particle pair, "from vacuum". Now, the interpretation, of the positron, as the electron "moving backwards in time", seems to say, that the Pair Production / Pair Annihilation, of the electron-positron pair, represents a single electron "circulating in (space-)time": Retrocausality can explain Black Hole Radiation from Pair Production (?) Physicist Stephen Hawking described the Quantum mechanism, which gives rise to Black Hole Radiation. When Pair Production happens sufficiently close to the Event Horizon of the Black Hole, one of the particles of the pair (our positron, say) falls into the Black Hole, while the other particle (our electron, say) escapes to infinity — carrying away its energy from the Black Hole. Now, the interpretation, of the positron, as the electron "moving backwards in time", leads to the startlingly straightforward statement, that our electron "simply" escapes from the far future Singularity, and crosses the Event Horizon, by "going backwards in time". It then just continues on, out to infinity, carrying away its energy from the Black Hole: But, wouldn't this imply, that if the electron fell into the Black Hole, that the Black Hole's mass should increase, since the "escaping positron" is "really" just an electron, "falling into the Black Hole while going backwards in time" ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDoes Retrocausality suggest a scheme for (hypothetical) Antimatter Rocket ?? Please ponder observing an electron & positron, approaching each other from opposite directions (in the Lab-Frame). Surely, the radiation released, by their "(mini) explosive annihilation", is Isotropic (??). But, don't "sharp & sudden" bends, in the trajectories of particles, produce "directed", "columnated", "synchrotron" sorts of radiations ?? So, recall the Retrocausal interpretation of positrons, as simply "electrons moving backwards in time". Then, the "sharpest kink" you could put, into the "backwards-in-time-bending" worldline of the electron, would be to basically "reverse the course" of the electron through Space-Time -- (nearly) inverting its 4D velocity vector ( [math]\left( \vec{v},c \right) \rightarrow \left( -\vec{v},-c \right)[/math] ), so that the "positron" was sent "backwards in time" almost along the same worldline that the electron came in on. Could such a scheme conceivably create a "columnated" release of radiation (which would potentially provide rocket thrust) ?? Are there any indications that this could, or could not, be the case ?? (Wouldn't this assumption, at least obey Conservation of Momentum, w/ the two parallel gamma rays carrying off the incident momentum, of the parallel positron-electron beams ??) Note that this 'Retrocausal' interpretation, seemingly says, that all of the "positrons", in the spaceship's "positron fuel tank", are actually the very same electrons then in the "electron fuel tank"... after those electrons have been "fired, exploded, & recovered [as 'positrons']"... at some point in the future (when, of your own Free Will, you choose to engage your Antimatter Rocket thrusters) (?!). Furthermore, the "positron-electron" Pair Creation that you (presumably) used to fill your fuel tanks, would -- in the Retrocausal interpretation -- actually represent merely the point were the positron "electrons moving backward in time" were switched to moving forward in time. To wit, between that Pair Creation (to fill the tanks), and the Pair Annihilation (emptying the tanks to provide propulsion), your electrons would simply "circulate in time".