On 9 Nov 2003 at 11:20, Brent Meeker wrote: >The theory of supersymmetry implied that all particles could decay to >photons. As the universe expands photons lose energy through >redshift. So the universe would decay asymptotically to zero energy >density. That's not exactly the same a decaying to nothing.
Decaying to nothing is not a requirement. All that matters is that a particle can not know of other particles, and for the reason being that redshift has gone to zero energy because the (relative to the affected particle) universe then is inflating at a speed faster than light and so no particle can interact with that affected particle. The bottom line is that there is no way to take relative measurements in that situation. If energy is not relative to something else then it is nothing more than virtual energy. From my opening and following posts for this list topic, I'm saying that when that situation occurs the energy has not been lost but it has been returned to what I've chosen (for topic consistency) to call a meta universe and from which it originated. >The theory of supersymmetry predicted that protons would decay. >Experiments have put lower bounds on the life of the proton that are >inconsistent with the simple forms of supersymmetry. Some modified >version may still be possible. ... >I think you are misled by cosmological discussions of inflation. >These generally assume a uniform, spherically symmetric solution to >Einsteins equations because that makes them explicitly solvalbe and it >is a good approximation at very large scales. In this approximation, >changes in the metric are uniform throughout space. This might lead >you to suppose that space is inflating even between quarks; but this >is an artifact of the simplifying approximation. If the equations >were solved exactly, taking into account of the lumpy distribution of >matter then there would be no expansion between nearby gravitationally >bound bodies (as in galaxies, much less atoms). Of course it is >already known that Einsteins equations cannot be correct at atomic >scales anyway because Einsteins theory is not consistent with quantum >mechanics. Again you seem to argue that there is a threshold level of attraction (be it gravitational or nuclear) below which inflation can not occur. If that be the case then what mechanism can explain inflation near the initial creation time of the universe when density of all existing matter was so highly concentrated? But inflation certain did occur, then it slowed, then it sped up again and appears to continue doing so. Might there be two differing types of inflation? Inflation did occur when all matter was gravitationally bound together during the birth times of our universe, the equations must reflect that empirical evidence. Had it not been for inflation the gravitational binding would have resulted in an immediate collapse of the newly born universe. >>It seems to me that it is true that one reason behind a decay of any >>particle (radioactive or not) is because of inflation rather than >>because of fuzzy quantum chance. The argument I put forth is that >>any atomic arrangement is actually 100% stable until it is acted upon >>by an external force, which does include inflation but could also >>include interaction with other energy sources. > >How is this argument consistent with the very accurate prediction of >decay rates based on quantum analysis of potential barriers which do >not consider inflation or any other aspect of gravity? You refer to quantum mechanical tunneling, a probabilistic event? We're getting Spooky again! It's a form of expression related to Planck's constant. There is no "in between" state in QM, a particle is either here or it's there when it comes to the smallest packet of energy that can be expressed. When decay occurs due to a particle being "there" instead of being "here" (i.e. bound as it was to a nucleus) we are simply seeing QM probability on display. This is not the same mechanism of decay being caused by inflation. There is no uncertainty when it comes to inflation, because decay by that method is not dependant on QM and it is instead dependant to how much space volume has inflated within a region occupied by the constructs of a particle and how the increasing distance between those constructs is eventually expressed in the only way matter can do so - in units specified by Planck's constant. Ron McFarland