Ferchrissake I will not make further private jokes about putting things into the B-field!¡!¡! I worked outside the beamline in the data shack at the Brookhaven Nat. lab beamline at 3 GEV, for two months in 1970. We wore radiation badges checked weekly. No doubt a few errant tools are found when a synchrotron first circulates. Safety regs???

Edited January 13, 200916 yr by Norman Albers

safety regs:

 

really HUGE effing sign in red, yellow and black that says "High magnetic field. Authorized persons only."

 

locked door - (somebody left a wood block in it to keep it ajar).

 

Yep, I'm submitting a PRT to get beamtime @ one of the beamlines @ the light source, which should again be accelerating and decelerating electrons @ ~0.6C on or about 1.15.09. They dumped the electron "bunch" last month so they could do maintenance. They've drastically reconfigured the beamlines since you were there - they have a "button-key-button-key" scenario, which forces you 2x to be out of the hutch before the beryllium window is opened.

Olaf Dreyer

Background Independent Quantum Field Theory and the Cosmological Constant Problem

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0409048

 

this is a 4-page paper addressing the cosmological constant problem in a new way.

 

here is the author's summary:

"We introduce the notion of background independent quantum field theory. The distinguishing feature of this theory is that the dynamics can be formulated without recourse to a background metric structure. We show in a simple model how the metric properties of spacetime can be recovered from the dynamics. Background independence is not only conceptually desirable but allows for the resolution of a problem haunting ordinary quantum field theory: the cosmological constant problem."

This is to me an exciting paper, nice to be able to download it. I'll recommend it to solidspin.

I'll take a chance and say that quantum gravity is about gluons

 

if it is true that the further away quarks get from another the stronger the attraction between them is , then why are not gluons considered the essence of quantum gravity ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'll take a chance and say that quantum gravity is about gluons

 

if it is true that the further away quarks get from another the stronger the attraction between them is , then why are not gluons considered the essence of quantum gravity ?

 

well why not people ?