GeneralDadmission Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Is there any hypothesis on what provides symmetry breaking for BB expansion and is there a definable model of particle stabilisation?
ajb Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 What symmetry are you referring to? You mean at the Planck scale and the GUT scale?
GeneralDadmission Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 What symmetry are you referring to? You mean at the Planck scale and the GUT scale? I'd have to assume it would be that which distinguishes either.
ajb Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 You are asking about how gravity separated from GUT fields? That would be in the regeme of quantum gravity and is highly speculative. I have no idea if there are any workable models or ideas here. The GUT scale is better explored, it is described by conventional supersymmetric quantum field theory and so you can work there. There are various gauge groups that people consider and various mechanisms of symmetry breaking. Like the electroweak symmetry breaking people think about spontaneous symmetry breaking in the context of GUTs. I don't know much about these phenomenological models, only that they are studied.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 thanks ajb. I'll go from there. I am trying to define whether it is important which element stabilises first. I don't see hydrogen stabilising first and would consider helium the stabilising element that allows temperature to drop to a level that allows hydrogen production.
ajb Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I am trying to define whether it is important which element stabilises first. I don't see hydrogen stabilising first and would consider helium the stabilising element that allows temperature to drop to a level that allows hydrogen production. What do you mean by stabilising? You mean during the recombination epoch? Helium with a larger ionization energy would have recombined earlier than the hydrogen. Still, the anisotropies in the CMBR depend largely on hydrogen recombination rather than helium recombination. The reason for this is that the universe was still quite opaque at the time of helium recombination. So cosmologically hydrogen is more important.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 What do you mean by stabilising? You mean during the recombination epoch? Helium with a larger ionization energy would have recombined earlier than the hydrogen. Still, the anisotropies in the CMBR depend largely on hydrogen recombination rather than helium recombination. The reason for this is that the universe was still quite opaque at the time of helium recombination. So cosmologically hydrogen is more important. The recombination product of primordial helium would not be evident within the CMBR but would still be cosmologically important in the form of DM/DE?
ajb Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The recombination product of primordial helium would not be evident within the CMBR but would still be cosmologically important in the form of DM/DE? It would need to be taken into account when working out the amount of standard matter in the early Universe, which is important for working out how much dark matter is needed.
Mordred Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Here is a couple good articles covering GUT. SO(10) is said to explain DE and DM more research is needed to confirm though. These two are primarily SO(5) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis SO(10) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 The thermodynamic article chapter 3 has an excellent coverage of nucleosynthesis. Including hydrogen, helium etc production.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis The thermodynamic article chapter 3 has an excellent coverage of nucleosynthesis. Including hydrogen, helium etc production. If you mean this one it isn't linking.
Spyman Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 If you look at the color of the link you can see that there are to many characters at the end. (Tip: always leave a blank between links and text so they don't merge.) Correct link: http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf
GeneralDadmission Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 If you look at the color of the link you can see that there are to many characters at the end. (Tip: always leave a blank between links and text so they don't merge.) Correct link: http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf Thanks. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf sooooo,,, just skimming would it be reasonable to conclude that hypothesis is that DM consists of elements that exist at charge levels that conform to neutrino rather than photon density?
Mordred Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 There is a lot of similarities between neutrinos and DM. Both are weakly interactive, Neutrinos is 1/2 spin with weak Force and gravity interactions. It's relativistic. Cold dark matter the only interactions we know of is gravity. We also believe it is a slow non relativistic particle. It may or may not be weakly interactive. It's slow movement implies it is massive. In terms of interactions it is closer to neutrinos than photons. The SO(10) papers believe it may be a sterile neutrino however it's one of many conjectures at this point. As far as when it forms we suspect it formed shortly after inflation, when exactly we don't know, however it is present at the CMB. It's presence aids the large scale structure formation. Via its anisotropy contributions to BAO. Baryon accoustic oscillations.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 There is a lot of similarities between neutrinos and DM. Both are weakly interactive, Neutrinos is 1/2 spin with weak Force and gravity interactions. It's relativistic. Cold dark matter the only interactions we know of is gravity. We also believe it is a slow non relativistic particle. It may or may not be weakly interactive. It's slow movement implies it is massive. In terms of interactions it is closer to neutrinos than photons. The SO(10) papers believe it may be a sterile neutrino however it's one of many conjectures at this point. As far as when it forms we suspect it formed shortly after inflation, when exactly we don't know, however it is present at the CMB. It's presence aids the large scale structure formation. Via its anisotropy contributions to BAO. Baryon accoustic oscillations. heh... so DM spacetime is equivocal to star trek sub-space?
GeneralDadmission Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 Roflmao hhmmm,, would the suggestion be that BH's are stabilised as DM?
Mordred Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 hhmmm,, would the suggestion be that BH's are stabilised as DM? You lost me there Blackholes have nothing to do with dark matter.
imatfaal Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 hhmmm,, would the suggestion be that BH's are stabilised as DM? Dark Matter is called Dark because it does not interact with Light / EMR - Black Holes are called Black because they do interact with light to such an extent that no light escapes the Event Horizon. Names are a bit misleading.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 Yes I was extending the analogy unnecessarily.
imatfaal Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Yes I was extending the analogy unnecessarily. Not as much as the silly sausage who named the energy that permeates the universe and accelerates the expansion "Dark Energy" - now if that name isn't asking for miscomprehension and deepak-chopra style nonsense then I don't know what is.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Not as much as the silly sausage who named the energy that permeates the universe and accelerates the expansion "Dark Energy" - now if that name isn't asking for miscomprehension and deepak-chopra style nonsense then I don't know what is. Yes it was reassuring to discover that vacuum energy was also an acceptable term. I can entirely understand DM/DE being terms that developed out of Cold War thinking however. Which raises a topic that has confused my absorbing the progress of Standard Theory. At some point I was looking for a gravitational FoR experiment that explored the boundaries of inertia. The most obvious was nuclear detonation in freefall. Considering this provided me with the solution that this experiment would produce a micro-BH. My assumption here is that detonation in the gravitational FoR isolates angular momentum as centre of momentum. I suppose my reference to DM being involved with BH stabilisation is a reference to the requirement for two vacuum states that mediate BH stabilisation at critical mass. I believe it is a question regarding what is a preferred FoR and why? This speculation would require that in the gravitational FoR detonation draws directly on the baryocentric potential of the galaxy to isolate the chain reaction. I am not seeking to support this as a hypothesis as it provides alarming results. Understanding where I have overly assumed to draw this conclusion would be benefical though. Edited February 13, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
GeneralDadmission Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 I had thought this would be easy enough to refute
GeneralDadmission Posted February 15, 2015 Author Posted February 15, 2015 Can someone describe what prevents a nuclear detonation in a gravitational FoR from producing a micro-BH?
Strange Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 Can someone describe what prevents a nuclear detonation in a gravitational FoR from producing a micro-BH? Nowhere near enough energy.
MigL Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 Most nuclear detonations would be in free fall. They are delivered by ICBM where the B stands for ballistic, ie unguided, falling missile or warhead. And are detonated at a height above the ground to maximize coverage, ie while still in free fall. There is nothing to refute as you haven't stated WHY a nuclear explosion would ( or ever could ) create a black hole. By definition any explosion reduces energy ( and mass ) density, and so would be less likely to form a black hole. Black holes would be produced by IMplosions or gravitational collapse, only if the mass/energy density exceeds a certain limit within a corresponding radius such that an event horizon ( escape velocity greater than c ) is produced.
Recommended Posts