On 25 July 2014 02:38, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> > There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string
>> landscape universe.
>>
>
> Perhaps but that's not the only way it could happen, string theory could
> be wrong and Everett still be
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR wrote:
> There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string
> landscape universe.
>
Perhaps but that's not the only way it could happen, string theory could be
wrong and Everett still be right. Everett pointed out that Schrodinger's
Wave Equa
On 23 Jul 2014, at 01:05, LizR wrote:
On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I agree that it does not make any sense.
But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within
the universe.
We now have two scientific definitions
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:53 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 24 July 2014 04:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> > I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
>> multiverse
>>
>> It seems that John Clark is.
>>
>> There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string
> land
On 24 July 2014 04:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> > I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
> multiverse
>
> It seems that John Clark is.
>
> There should be an Everett style multiverse embedded in the string
landscape universe. That is, one in 10^500 of the string lands
nt: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
> I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
> multiverse
It seems that John Clark is.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21,
> I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
multiverse
It seems that John Clark is.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 LizR wrote:
>
>
>> > For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether
>> the MV "oppo
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 LizR wrote:
> > For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether
> the MV "opposes" supersymmetry in some sense.
>
Not really. If String Theory is true there are at least 10^500 other
universes with different laws of physics and maybe a infinite numbe
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
On 23 July 2014 12:07, John Ross wrote:
Tronnies do not form protons. Tronnies form only entrons (two tronnies),
electrons (three tronnies) and positrons (three tronnies).
Protons are comprised of a very high energ
On 23 July 2014 12:07, John Ross wrote:
> Tronnies do not form protons. Tronnies form only entrons (two tronnies),
> electrons (three tronnies) and positrons (three tronnies).
>
> Protons are comprised of a very high energy electron (comprised of an
> electron and a neutrino entron) and two po
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:13 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
On 23 July 2014 05:15, John Ross wrote:
Symmetry
Every proton contains one electron and two positrons. Th
On 23 July 2014 05:15, John Ross wrote:
> Symmetry
>
> Every proton contains one electron and two positrons. There is one
> electron for each proton. There exists a relatively few free positrons
> and there is a free electron to match each free positrons. Electrons and
> positrons are created
On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> I agree that it does not make any sense.
> But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the
> universe.
> We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very
>
I think I made a summary above of my initial reaction. But the reason I
asked the question is that I agree with you. And after reading a number of
comments, I still don't see any definite opposition here. I think the
"opposition" of ideas is between the fact that SUSY leaves more to be
discovered a
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:42 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
There is an observed asymmetry in the Universe - if not between matter and
antimatter, then between the distribution of positively and negatively charged
tro
On 22 Jul 2014, at 07:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 July 2014 10:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
LizR,
I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about.
The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of
On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I agree that it does not make any sense.
But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within
the universe.
We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very
confusing.
Richard
Well Tegmark made an interesti
I agree that it does not make any sense.
But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the
universe.
We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very
confusing.
Richard
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On 22 July 2014 10:18, Ri
On 21 Jul 2014, at 02:56, LizR wrote:
Thanks! I will perhaps have more to say / ask once I've looked at
those.
I will take a look on Jesse's references once I am less busy. I wait
for you making a good summary :)
(a priori, I see no relation between Suzy and MW).
Bruno
--
You rec
On 21 Jul 2014, at 01:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
My only comment is that SUSY is associated with string theory, not MW.
String theory includes QFT as a low energy equivalent w/o SUSY
and QFT does not predict MW. But then I am just another dummie.
No problem Richard, the future belongs to the
On 22 July 2014 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> LizR,
>
> I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
> multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about.
> The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our
> universe. It is not evidence for an Evere
On 21 July 2014 17:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> But they cannot cancel to high precision if the symmetry is broken
>
> I think this is something to do with their contributions to renormalising
(is that the word?) the Higgs mass. They can somehow bring it down from
around the Planck mass to more l
On 22 July 2014 10:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> LizR,
>
> I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
> multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about.
> The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our
> universe. It is not evidence for an Everet
LizR,
I hope you are not confusing the MV multiverse with the Everett MWI
multiverse within our universe that Bruno talks about.
The evidence for an MV is just evidence for universes outside of our
universe. It is not evidence for an Everett-type multiverse.
Richard
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:15
Mind you I think the main argument against supersymmetry is that the names
are so damn ugly.
A stop squark and a wino go into a bar...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails f
googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ]
> *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:22 PM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: The Higgs and "SUSY vs the Multiverse"
>
>
>
> Does no one have any comment / answer / info
On 22 July 2014 05:47, John Clark wrote:
> If you're interested in physical evidence of the multiverse it will
> probably come from radio telescopes not particle accelerators. Back in
> March of this year there was a report of variations of the polarization of
> the microwave radiation from the
If you're interested in physical evidence of the multiverse it will
probably come from radio telescopes not particle accelerators. Back in
March of this year there was a report of variations of the polarization of
the microwave radiation from the Big Bang that could only have come from
Inflation d
But they cannot cancel to high precision if the symmetry is broken
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, LizR wrote:
> Or even a "broken" symmetry.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Or even a "broken" symmetry.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email t
To a second approximation, the afore-mentioned cancellation can be made
very exact by giving each particle a partner which exactly balances its
contribution (or words to that effect). These are the "superpartners", and
give a fermion for each known boson and vice versa. Since fermions and
bosons ha
To a first approximation this appears to have something to do with the
relative weakness of gravity compared to the weak force. This is, I gather,
highly unexpected because it involves some delicate cancellations
(presumably delicate to about 32 decimal places). And I also gather this is
connected
Thanks! I will perhaps have more to say / ask once I've looked at those.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegro
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these things will comment,
but I believe it has to do with what physicists call the "hierarchy
problem", here are some links for your perusal:
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/
http://pro
Also 10^500 is the number of unique windings thru 500 topo holes each
winding having 10 quantum states,
but in 6 dimensions, not 11.
I also do not understand why SUSY would rule out MW.
Richard
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR wrote:
> Does no one have any comment / answer / information o
My only comment is that SUSY is associated with string theory, not MW.
String theory includes QFT as a low energy equivalent w/o SUSY
and QFT does not predict MW. But then I am just another dummie.
Richard
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:22 PM, LizR wrote:
> Does no one have any comment / answer / i
Does no one have any comment / answer / information on this?
On 20 July 2014 15:38, LizR wrote:
> We've just been watching "Particle Fever" - a documentary about the LHC
> (from 2007 to the discovery of the Higgs boson last year). In it, at least
> a couple of people (Monica Dunbar and David K
37 matches
Mail list logo
