[math-fun] Best explanation of the Higgs particle
Here's the download link for the full-motion video: http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/download/bblunch/arkanihamed2/snd/Arkanihamed2_Bl...
--I listened to this Nima Arkani-Hamed lecture, my computer was able to handle it although took an hour to download. One thing N.A-H mentioned as a key building block was that it is impossible for a particle to have spin>2. However, in "string theory" just spin a string harder. You can get whatever spin you want, no matter how large. No? So: How are these two claims to be reconciled? [I have asked this question of physicists before, by the way. So far, I have never got any answer back I considered reasonable.]
along similar lines, playing with http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/hrcalc.js I came unto a surprise: fill in the estimated mass 3.4 10^54 kg of the the known (?) universe into the formula for a black hole, and estimate the diameter (or circumference/Pi for you singularophobics out there), what diameter do you get? to be (inside) or not to be (inside), that's the question Wouter. -----Original Message----- From: Warren Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:39 AM To: math-fun Subject: [math-fun] Best explanation of the Higgs particle
Here's the download link for the full-motion video: http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/download/bblunch/arkanihamed2/snd/Arkanihamed2_Bl...
--I listened to this Nima Arkani-Hamed lecture, my computer was able to handle it although took an hour to download. One thing N.A-H mentioned as a key building block was that it is impossible for a particle to have spin>2. However, in "string theory" just spin a string harder. You can get whatever spin you want, no matter how large. No? So: How are these two claims to be reconciled? [I have asked this question of physicists before, by the way. So far, I have never got any answer back I considered reasonable.] _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Interesting. I got 530 billion light years for the radius. Is this correct? This is only ~37x the current estimated size of the universe, so at least the orders of magnitude are close. Perhaps it is the estimate of the mass of the universe that is off? Perhaps we're inside the black hole, and that microwave background we see is our own event horizon? BTW, Planck's initial insight into the solution to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (I would have called it the "purple paradox", but I guess that phrase wasn't dramatic enough for the popular press) was to posit energy in quanta. Then Rutherford developed the "planetary model" of the atom, but the problem with this is that a classical electron would almost immediately radiate way all of its orbital energy. The solution was that electrons could be in resonant "orbits" which didn't radiate (or more accurately, would radiate in particular energy jumps; for long-lived atoms, these jumps were far larger than normally available). I suspect that something similar may be happening to black holes at the smallest sizes -- there may be resonances which allow very small black holes to survive far longer than the standard Hawking radiation model would predict. At 02:57 PM 1/16/2013, Wouter Meeussen wrote:
along similar lines,
playing with http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/hrcalc.js I came unto a surprise: fill in the estimated mass 3.4 10^54 kg of the the known (?) universe into the formula for a black hole, and estimate the diameter (or circumference/Pi for you singularophobics out there), what diameter do you get?
to be (inside) or not to be (inside), that's the question
Wouter.
This is only ~37x the current estimated size of the universe
that's what I got too. No surprise in hindsight, since we assume the universe's expansion speed to equal c if we multiply the uniform expansion rate by the estimated universe size. Some things do no grok though: temperature seen from the inside (3K cosmic background) doen't match that seen 'from the outside'; Wouter. (cosmology from the hip, tongue in cheek) -----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Henry Baker Sent: donderdag 17 januari 2013 0:43 To: Wouter Meeussen Cc: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [math-fun] Best explanation of the Higgs particle Interesting. I got 530 billion light years for the radius. Is this correct? This is only ~37x the current estimated size of the universe, so at least the orders of magnitude are close. Perhaps it is the estimate of the mass of the universe that is off? Perhaps we're inside the black hole, and that microwave background we see is our own event horizon? BTW, Planck's initial insight into the solution to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (I would have called it the "purple paradox", but I guess that phrase wasn't dramatic enough for the popular press) was to posit energy in quanta. Then Rutherford developed the "planetary model" of the atom, but the problem with this is that a classical electron would almost immediately radiate way all of its orbital energy. The solution was that electrons could be in resonant "orbits" which didn't radiate (or more accurately, would radiate in particular energy jumps; for long-lived atoms, these jumps were far larger than normally available). I suspect that something similar may be happening to black holes at the smallest sizes -- there may be resonances which allow very small black holes to survive far longer than the standard Hawking radiation model would predict. At 02:57 PM 1/16/2013, Wouter Meeussen wrote:
along similar lines,
playing with http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/hrcalc.js I came unto a surprise: fill in the estimated mass 3.4 10^54 kg of the the known (?) universe into the formula for a black hole, and estimate the diameter (or circumference/Pi for you singularophobics out there), what diameter do you get?
to be (inside) or not to be (inside), that's the question
Wouter.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun =============================== This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. You are explicitly requested to notify the sender of this email that the intended recipient was not reached.
participants (4)
-
Henry Baker -
Meeussen Wouter (bkarnd) -
Warren Smith -
Wouter Meeussen