14 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
Old Arcadian Functor
Physics Blogs
-
How large is the W mass anomaly2 years ago
-
The forgotten life of Einstein’s wife7 years ago
-
Did a skydiver see a meteoroid in flight?10 years ago
-
Circuit diagrams of real neural systems15 years ago
-
Mathematics
-
-
-
Moonshine over the integers2 months ago
-
BookProject7 years ago
-
-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License
Thanks for making it public. Some comments. First, it seems to me that there might be something about the matter / antimatter baryogensis problem here. One of the Sakharov conditions was CP or T violation, so CPT violation would change the details.
ReplyDeleteSecond, one of the features of a neutrino gas is that since neutrinos are the lightest particles, it has the highest possible specific heat. Surely that has something to do with the big bang, can't say what.
Third, if the neutrino masses are tied to the CMB temperature, then this implies that the neutrinos were heavier in the past. A lot heavier. Does this have observable consequences?
Meanwhile, still no acceptances for grad school. I am getting worried and am planning out alternatives.
Sorry to hear about grad school, but in this climate I guess it is not too surprising. You face some serious ageism and anti-crackpotism.
ReplyDeleteNice comment on the specific heat. Yes, many more details need to be worked out. It would be nice to see more people thinking about these things.
"...this implies that the neutrinos were heavier in the past. A lot heavier. Does this have observable consequences?"
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does. Experiments can indirectly measure the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at nucleosynthesis and at decoupling. This is not my field, but I'm told that the best fit points are ~3 for the former and ~4-5 for the latter (see for example http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0866). Certainly each is bounded away from zero with high significance.
So a model in which neutrinos were non-relativistic in the early universe has serious problems.
(By the way, good luck getting into grad school. I think it would be a real shame if you missed out.)
Rhys, nobody said anything about a unique observer independent universe. But thanks for pointing out the best fit of $4$ to $5$ ... I don't think we got around to discussing that. Of course there are three neutrinos and three antineutrinos, and then mirror neutrinos, and abundance fractions are temperature dependent. And I believe that the Riofrio cosmology has a much better chance of explaining changing dofs than the (now dead) standard one.
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading after posting a thought of last night that your theory, especially the 3x3x3 colored graph may apply with more detail to biology as many new theorist (Like Rowlands who also seems to agree with much of your position) speculates.
ReplyDeleteA masterful paper with so many conclusions I feel a home with you in the positions.
It was not what I expected totally- but it still echoed some thoughts for a new physics of which I hope this inspires a new generation of researchers.
Your paper was very readable and some numbers I recognize not know how you came about them or to what they apply in your context, nor that they are not integers.
ThePeSla, I am sure you are correct. After all, the Planck mass is at a biological scale. But I struggle enough with the mathematics and physics, and have put almost no effort into learning biology. Then again, the coding is mathematical, and for a long time I have thought that the $Z_4$ basis for DNA is due to the existence of Ghrist's universal knot template.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations! Long live xivra! Best wishes for Carl, too. There must be some graduate school that will accept someone with his talents. If UT Austin is not an option, there is a University of Houston here adjacent to Johnson Space Center.
ReplyDeleteYes, thanks to Phil at vixra. Texas might be pleasantly cool at this time of year.
ReplyDeleteWow Kea,
ReplyDeleteA most interesting paper on the Ghrist templates. Now I understand the term braid. I think his description coincides with my view of treating certain orders of things in the notation as more than just arbitrary differences. Of course DNA has informational aspects which I imagine these knots can be graphed to as a different way or method. So you are essentially right, biologist or not :-) I think this also related to a paper you have posted with a quantum flavor by Michael Rios for such templates and methods are after all a deep form of computation or the facts of the processes proceeding in the universe. All of us are exploring the same forms of a more universal template.
But the article Future of Cosmology looks bright- while I agree with these hidden sources of cosmic structure- comes to me as a surprise to read and suggest it read that way.
Ghrist also seems to realize we have to take these things down a level or so deeper, as with most of our recent methods.
You are there at the creation of this new fundamental view- happy valentines day too.