Thanks for the summary. I have already made my own interpretation, though. This really is interesting, and it is surprising you don't get any funding for it. You deserve all the help you can get. One thing, you talked in faviour of a new 'ether' or grid, and so now say it all emerges from nothingness. With no Higgs. You should concentrate on the cosmology too a bit more? I know, time.
No, Ulla, I do not like discussions of an aether or grid. I choose my words carefully.
http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-aether.htmlI would have sweared you was in faviour of an aether.
Once again, Ulla, no. I am in favour of something that others may well term Aether. That is what I said. And quoting bloggers back to themselves is very bad online manners.
Well, sorry. I was a bit perplexed.
It seems that a consequence of relating the electron neutrino masses to the universe's black body CMBR temperature is that the neutrino mass has to have been higher in the past.I wonder if there's any way to obtain that as an alternative explanation for the varying alpha observations. But I kind of doubt that changing the neutrino mass will have much of an effect as it is so close to massless, compared to the energies involved.I'm suffering through yet another painful rewrite of that dammed parameterization paper, this time to Jour. Math. Physics. I understand the likely pain involved, so I hesitate to recommend sending this out for publication, but it sure would look nice in Foundations of Physics. The tough part is recommending the right reviewers, I think.
Carl, the idea is that it was the other neutrinos that matched higher CMB temperatures in the past. That is, the cosmic history is not smooth. This does not conflict with observations because we only actually see lumpy stuff like galaxies. In Louise's sense, the masses should all have been lower in the past ... starting at zero ... but as a model, that could be accounted for by the scale parameter.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.