joigus

Maybe even question your own assumptions, or would that just be too much questioning?

It doesn't have to "fall" in any hands. It could be sent to the right hands tomorrow. Several publications allow you to register as an author for free. They've got templates in LaTeX with their format on them. Write an abstract as brief and clear as possible, presenting your results and conclusions, as well as your references. Go through the peer-reviewing process and you may get lucky, who knows. Maybe you are "the one". PD.: Try to avoid presenting yourself as an "schizophrenic out of the box".

There is a "no space inversion symmetry" property of sorts, if you think about it. Because CPT is the robust ST-inversion symmetry of Nature, this suggests that CP are twin properties of T. That all these properties go together in building up one entity. The hard question about these symmetries is (IMO) that they do not allow you to think about them in terms of active transformations (actually changing anything in a system), but as passive transformations (re-labelling of everything). Thanks for bringing these animations to our attention. +1

It's not the same. You would have to change physics completely to have U(1) charge violation. But violation of baryon and lepton number could be easily accommodated. I think everybody is aware of that. I'm having difficulties understanding this paragraph. Could you break it down into simpler sentences? Which is "misunderstand as the same way it disprove nuclear fusion"? What is misunderstood, and what disproves what the same way as what? ------ The thing about taking any excess radiance of stellar objects as a watertight proof that baryon number violation (or CP violation, which combined would account for baryo/lepto genesis) is going on there is that you would have to have a clean prediction of what such spectrum would look like in neutron stars (or BHs, for that matter) to compare against. Do you know of any such clean prediction? That's what I meant when I said "difficult to prove", rather than being a question of incredulity or neglect. I find it very difficult to believe it's just a matter of neglect.

Please, don't bring up diabetes. That would further complicate the problem.

I don't think you have, necessarily. But much of the difficulty is that the status of the "theory" is heavily laden with guesswork. People who work on this area frequently talk about a "dictionary": A set of rules to translate from the language of the gauge theory to the language of gravity. It is by no means clear what time is in the Chern-Simons theory, for example, which is a favourite gauge-theory choice for 1+2 gravity, and you must make assumptions to get to known physics. Consider a sphere divided into many conducting lands, insulated from each other, and each charged to some different electrical potential. The Field within the sphere can be determined from a knowledge of the position and potentials of the surface lands alone. Interesting problem, but quite complicated, and I'm not sure it can be related to the gravity-gauge duality. I would start with two symmetric lands, one positive and one negative (for simplicity). I would also assume the metric to be trivial. You can solve for a half-sphere of charge with the help of the superposition principle and by assuming the negative potential function for a negative hemi-sphere of charge being the symmetric (in charge & space) of a positive hemi-sphere of charge. If, as Markus suggests, you assume permeability and permitivity, you're throwing in two more (scalar) degrees of freedom: You've got two more scalar fields. You need dielectrics to insulate the conductors. Properties of matter are additional DOFs, the same as metric properties of ST. The simple argument we were talking about has to do with fields in the vacuum, and nothing but gravity inside. If you throw in matter, it's much more complicated. I haven't thought very seriously about this problem really. 1,000,000 light seconds is a distance. Do you mean 1,000,000 seconds? Or a distance radius of 1,000,000 light seconds? Something like 9/11 attack I don't think would be well (or easily) described by smooth fields... The AdS/CFT duality assumes pure gravity inside and I'm sure analyticity of the fields is playing a role in all of it. Mixing everything inside and outside doesn't let one (me, at least) think clearly of what we're talking about.

Job description of the guy with the hockey stick? "My job is to try very hard to piss off a robot"

Thanks a lot. Very useful. +1

I can't think of any reason why that would be impossible. My intuition, though, is that trying to study this process in dirty jets of QCD is perhaps not the best way. But the more accurately the QCD background is known, I suppose the easier it will become to subtract it from whatever's happening and detect cross sections of new physics. I would suggest to contact people who know about luminosities, etc. in the LHC. I'm not sure that people neglect it because they feel certain about it. Maybe it's just about difficulties in measuring it. In the last years, some colossal BHs have been argued to be just too big to have accreted from stellar matter. Perhaps they are more primeval objects than anybody had thought thus far. I don't think we have a complete picture of how all BHs arise. Collapse from neutron stars may just be one way for a stellar object to become a BH. For all I know, BHs could be violating baryon conservation like crazy. And then there's the possibility of primordial BHs... If you take a look at the SM Lagrangian, it just looks as if baryon number were the remains of an honest-to-goodness gauge theory, but some extreme process had stripped the baryons completely clean of their baryonic gauge "dressing". The space of possible ideas that are still reasonable is richer than we sometimes dare to think. I have just looked up "baryon number violation and black holes" and there seem to be lots of papers. And even one that proposes something very similar to what I was trying to suggest (that they have something to do in baryogenesis): https://cds.cern.ch/record/355696/files/9805455.pdf It's from 1998. Keep in mind that it's usually called "baryogenesis", but what people really mean is both baryogenesis and leptogenesis.

Those are quite plausible. I applaud them.

LOL. Pray you, insulate the walls!!!

You're right. What else can I say? +1 Perhaps this: I've been looking at Calabi-Yau manifolds for years and to me they look like things that, no matter where you're at in them, seem to try to twist spherically in one direction and hyperbollically in another. They're like (and I'm struggling for a rough picture here) trying to open holes in every point but never quite completely opening them, so what they "open" is just more and more saddle points. I don't know if it's clear what I'm trying to point at here. Irrespective of how sensible this picture is, you may be totally right that the topology may be totally crazy, and it's only the coarse-grained picture of it that gives the illusion of locality. But somehow I don't think any of that touches much on Bell's theorem territory, so to speak. I could be wrong, of course. ER=EPR is another issue I'm struggling to understand. It seems that experts themselves are trying to figure out what feature of BHs is really fundamental in the sense that other features like scrambling, or entropy, etc., are more naturally derived from the defining issue. I must look at ER=EPR in more detail. I've got some references but I never seem to get around to it.

Oh, oh. Much of the heat in the Earth's interior comes from furious radioactive decay. Full of heavy elements there. That's why Kelvin got the age of the Earth wrong by quite a long shot. If you assume air temperature to come from there you may be faced with no sensible hydrodynamic regime being able to account for it. I think that's why, even though I was sloppy, sheer substitution in hydrodynamic formulas with T at centre = Tcore gave me crazy numbers. And believe me, "crazy" is an understatement. It's true that I tend to do these calculations at 3 in the morning, so... I do believe you are deep in the regime of "hard balls" there. Ionization may play a part too, as MigL says. May I ask where this problem came from? Did somebody give it to you as an assignment or is it just for the fun of it? Yep. I think it's a plasma down there even if you impose isolating walls. But even so, the "stellar" approximation would be less off than assuming an ideal gas. Nothing ideal in that situation.

Good try. +1 But he's proved you wrong because... He's got a Latin name for those things. Who could argue with that? And at this point I leave.

Good point. I think betting might be involved too. I've thought of that myself.

Thank you, you're pretty funny yourself. I'm sorry about the coffee stains. Mind you, he's written "Nothing" with a capital.

He must have watched a couple of documentaries about intelligent design.

This really says it all about your "approach".

Selective breeding changes the rules of the game. Even at molecular / tissue formation level. Have you ever wondered why black and white spotted animals are very common in selectively-bred species and not at all in the wild? How does the fur of these animals know their immediate ancestors have bred selectively? I can give you references if you're interested. "Selective breeding gives wild variation" is a known pattern that's in the process of being understood. It's been witnessed. But the evolution clock is so slow that you have to look very hard. I can give you references if you're interested. You don't understand evolution, but now I understand that you don't understand evolution.

Looking forward to it. Don't feel any pressure. I think I can try and look it up. So, again, no rush. The observation is interesting enough so that I won't forget. You're probably right. I'd say I'm learning about this probably much more slowly than you are. I trust you far more than I trust myself, and I don't say that out of courtesy. I wouldn't dare to correct you at this point. I've been watching 3 ICTS lectures by one of the authors of the Kerr/CFT duality you told me about (Alejandra Castro) whom Lubos Motl (wrongly, probably) mentions as Alejandra Fidel Castro (LOL). Curiously enough, she avoids mentioning anything about future timelike and past timelike at some point. Those are AdS/CFT lectures. The sound is terrible in the 3rd lecture. Chern-Simons gravity is very nearly unfathomable to me. And all of it, I think, is in 1+2 gravity, so... Apparently you can formulate the equivalent of geodesic equations by prescribing a gauge choice in the SL(2) or SL(N) (higher spin) group. That's the most interesting idea I got from the lectures. Anyway, it was never my intention to suggest that there's a direct relationship between Stokes' theorem and AdS/CFT. It was somebody else's.

But couldn't we say that for anything to be inconsistent with reality, we must have a picture of that whole reality, which we... don't? I tend to see "reality" as a place holder for whatever we intuit the next level of description may be. Perhaps the next level of reality description implies dropping our naïveté about what it must look like. Complex numbers, non-trivial topologies... The works!! I've read a comment by @swansont far back in the past forums about "physical reality" that I don't remember exactly but I found very interesting, and it's similar to what I've just said. Maybe he can help me recover it. Or rephrase it.

I may have missed it. I did take a look at your suggestion: and it got me linking back to my previous observation of how far away from an ideal gas we probably are. Very close to electron degeneracy regime at the deep core. I think @MigL's suggestion of thinking in terms of Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations of state is not very far-fetched, to say the least. I know next to nothing about that though.

Sorry, just to correct myself. It is associated with a local conservation law, but not local DOF associated (gauge fields). I think you understood me. I sincerely doubt it. The LHC is being useful at the level of studying a lot of QCD background. But it's very difficult IMO to use it to detect such a small deviation from SM. If one in 1039 (or wherever the threshold is from Superkamiokande and such) protons decayed there, it would be very difficult to highlight it from the background, I surmise. Very interesting possibility. +1 There is actually an argument in favour of baryon number violation that has to do with BHs. There may be exotica to be explored in the spectrum of primordial or supermassive BHs.

I'm starting to think I didn't understand the point that the OP was trying to make.

Thank goodness you've asked "can baryon number be violated?" and not "will we ever see baryon number violation?" If you look at the relevant pieces of the standard model Lagrangian, it strongly suggests that baryon number can be violated. Otherwise, what's this continuous symmetry doing there not associated with a local conservation law, completely looking like a gauge symmetry but the local degrees of freedom being absent? It's very peculiar. Plus it's the best way so far to explain baryogenesis and matter/antimatter asymmetry. The directions I tend to look at when the lights go off and I think about this are mainly: GUT extensions to the SM are not written in stone. The role that the scalar field plays in Nature is kind of like a parametric all-purpose machinery, not something fundamentally understood.