Saturday, December 03, 2011

Quark-gluon plasma in TGD Universe

I listened an excellent talk by Dam Thanh Son in Harward Monday seminar series. The title of the talk was Viscosity, Quark Gluon Plasma, and String Theory. What the talk represents is a connection between three notions which one would not expect to have much to do with each other.

I decided to briefly summarize the basic points of Son's talk which I warmly recommend for anyone wanting to sharpen his or her mental images about quark gluon plasma.

  1. I realized that the TGD variant of AdS/CFT correspondence based on string-parton duality allows a concrete identification of the process leading to the formation of strongly interacting quark gluon plasma.

  2. "Strongly interacting" means that partonic 2-surfaces are connected by Kähler magnetic flux tubes making the many-hadron system single large hadron in the optimal case rather than a gas of uncorrelated partons. This allows a concrete generalization of the formula of kinetic gas theory for the viscosity.

  3. One ends up also to a concrete interpretation for the formula for the η/s ratio in terms of TGD variant of Einsteinian gravitation and the analogs of black-hole horizons identified as partonic 2-surfaces. This gravitation is not fictive gravitation in 10-D space but real sub-manifold gravitation in 4-D space-time.

  4. It is essential that TGD does not assume gravitational constant as a fundamental constant but as a prediction of theory depending on the p-adic length scale and the typical value of Kähler action for the lines of generalized Feynman graphs. Feeding in the notion of gravitational Planck constant, one finds beautiful interpretation for the lower limit viscosity which is smaller than the one predicted by AdS-CFT correspondence.

I do not bother to type all six pages here and instead recommend the reader to look at the article Algebraic braids, sub-manifold braid theory, and generalized Feynman diagrams or the new chapter Generalized Feynman Diagrams as Generalized Braids of "Towards M-matrix".

26 Comments:

At 10:20 AM, Blogger Stephen Crowley said...

I wish I had the patience for streaming media, I've found that the pixels coming off my monitor inter-mix with QCD effects which are basically random noise coming from the delivery mechanism itself (all the fiber optic routing and random mixing of all sorts of related traffic). Maybe I could download the video, burn it to a DVD, then get a personal dvd player or laptop and seclude myself in a cave somewhere to watch

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

Steven,

Part of what you see in the pixels can be modified by your mind for it is not clearly random.

Or instead of capacitors have tori inductors in your visual card.

Also I will change my television so that what I cannot watch or decide not to does not affect your choices at a distance.

The PeSla

Oh matti, in my philosophic post today I compared many sheeted fine Swedish steel to our old age of iron, thanks for the metaphor.

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger Stephen Crowley said...

Pesla, yes this is true, I was discussing this point with like minded individuals a few evenings ago, it is very interesting in that sometimes the mind modifies them in non-trivial ways... I believe that this mechanism might underlie many instances of schizophrenia where people think that people on TV are "talking to them" I will find some way to watch the video in peace

 
At 12:06 PM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

On the other hand, Steven, I just cannot believe like some of my fundamentalist friends that evil things come out of their television screens. The relation to "schizophrenia" is a most interesting question but in what sense is "talking to them" not a form of intuition or forecasting. I mean by old standards people that imagined transmissions or television were considered pretty far out there.

So does the collective mind modify things in non-trivial ways?

But let me get back to Matti's topic and these ideas of such plasma. I can watch it in my mind I imagine- even if it is not clear that gluons make sense in the model as particles. But this distinction Fermi and Bose is secondary to the distinction Matti is making here. But the 4D and 10D distinction, Matti, does not matter in your wider hyperbolic wormhole world- to this vision it is the lesser theorits that are behind the times and schzoid.

But I will study more the details of this.

The PeSla

 
At 7:59 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

Dear Pesla;

The TGD counterpart for gauge-gravity duality involves 2-D partonic surfaces replacing 4-D Minkowski space (the dimension is same as for everyday holograms- boring!) and 4-D space-time replacing 10-D space-time (erven more boring!).


AdS-CFT involves the fictive 10-D AdS_5xS^5 and describes quark-gluon plasma as 10-D blackhole. This is of course much more interesting than what poor TGD can provide;-). The predicted jet distributions are wrong but which we should not allow this minor detail to worry us. As good consumers of pop science we must be ready to pay something for a good entertainment;-).

Speaking more seriously: the basic outcome is that quark-gluon plasma is not plasma at all. In ideal case it is one very large hadron-like state rather than gas of partons. It resembles plasma as little as glass resembles water vapor. For instance, viscosity is enormous although its ratio to entropy is near to its minimal value.

 
At 1:03 AM, Anonymous Orwin said...

To me percolative AdS is a common phenomenon: it happens with coffee, giving a coffee-shop a distinctive atmosphere and cultural value, with commercial value in Austrian tourism and Starbucks. I've tested it closely curing coffee, and the effect is real.

Maybe the compactified six dimensions are just Kea's hegaxon of particles, so its happening at chemical scale, as chemical emergence. The 5th dimension is there on this scale in the complex dialectric of sea-water and other hydropolasmas like blood.

Interestingly, ThePeSla's old Pythagorean theme of odds and events then returns through the compactification. The historical fact is that Mersenne primes were discussed by Euclid in the theory that followed, Proclus' "introduction to cosmology".

 
At 3:15 AM, Anonymous Satama said...

Brewing my morning coffee and thinking about my silly noob question - what is p-adic length scale? I'm reading von Bayer's book on information and guessing it has something to do with logarithmic compactification, ie. numerical lengths of number strings. Exact details still escape poor me. Just like the Boltzmann tombstone S = k log W, stating that entropy is the logarith of different manners multiplied by constant of a fitting unit.

Under his tombstone Boltzmann lies in his dark hole where he went through the black box of severe depression and noose of the rope with hangman's knot. This dark hole associates anti de Sitter first with the hottest love-poem by Psappho (fainetai moi...), that stars with lines:

To me that man equals a god
as he sits before you and listens
closely to your sweet voice
http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/sappho.htm

Television-God is hybrid of Greek (non leguntur) and Latin meaning 'far-seeing' or 'viewing at distance', and every shaman-schitzofrenic-bipolar comes to the realization that it's the center of the universe, in the humanistic meaningful way of information (just frenic and polar with and without the chiralities of schitzo and bi, so no need to be afraid of those). Being also cosmologically informed helps to entropy that pressure by understanding that so is everyone else. The question about meaning is just about scale (in)variance?

BTW Greeks didn't mind with their brain lobes but with their guts, as etymologically and organically 'fren' means heart and organs below, diapragma (Gr. for partition) etc.

Television is fundamentally evil compared to screens and bodies participating in a participatory universe of World Wide Web, if we accept observation events as participatory (holographic!?) events instead of being passively hypnotized by demands of exponential monetary growth to become active entropic consumers and little else than the units of money that entropy has found best suited to level out all meaningful exergy and negentropy on this planet.

As question about entropy boils down to the choice of best suited unit of measure, and money (as exponential growth of debt) is the logarithm of evil, is there a better natural unit of (neg)entropy/information for measurement needs of us measuring kinds?

 
At 3:58 AM, Anonymous Orwin said...

I have a draft on the frenetic, splenetic.. sequence, finding in it an ancient language of consciousness.

The buzz in quantum computing is about vallies in silicon, which throw up new degrees of freedom coupling with spin states/qbits. Zeeman field gating looks promising BUT the tilt of the valley induces mixing, angles and the whole Standard Theory-type mess.

Topography or land is again an economic entropy, a path-variance between producer and consumer. It would help to cost it in properly, but the agents can still walk out, as from Detroit. Right now quant economics is still in denial about negative profit-rates, but that's often consumers turning away.

Again I come back to the shadow-play of charge-masking, the virtual paths of occasional attractions.. Who says the world that matters to us is made of anything substantial?

 
At 5:18 AM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

To Santeri:

Thank you for an excellent question.


The notion of p-adic length scale emerged from p-adic mass calculations which I performed around 1994 or so for the first time.

a) CP_2 size defines a fundamental length scale R and one can assign with it mass scale by uncertainty principle as CP_2 mass M_0= hbar/R.

b) The prediction of p-adic thermodynamics for mass squared as thermodynamical expectation value is expressible as

M^2= k M_1^*2/p.

Here M_1 is CP_2 mass defined above and p is the p-adic prime assumed be very near to a power of 2: p=about 2^k. i is integer int he first approximation

c) This formula is obtained by first calculating the p-adic valued mass squared usual conformally invariant thermodynamic and then mapping it to real valued mass squared by canonical identification: in excellent approximation canonical identification takes x= sum_n x_np^n (p-adic number) to I(x)= sum_nx_np^(-n). You just invert the powers of p. Canonical identification as such however does not respect symmetries although it is continuous and this has worried me all these 15 years (poor me;-!).



d) p-Adic mass scale is defined using Uncertainty Principle as Compton length for minimum mass
squared obtained for k=1:

L_p= hbar/M = hbar*sqrt(p)/M.

That's it. By assuming p=about 2^k one obtains a series of mass scales coming as half octaves of

L_1= hbar/M_1:

formally p-adic length scale for p=1, which is not of course prime.

 
At 5:25 AM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

A further comments to Santeri relating to canonical identification.


As I confessed, my life with canonical identification
has not been totally happy.

Some time ago I however managed to find an improved variant of canonical identification respecting both symmetries and continuity so that I am now a happy man after these 15 years of suffering.

See this and this.

I found the generalization by starting from a picture developed to explain Shnoll effect. The resulting modification leads to what I call quantum arithmetics, a deformation of ordinary arithmetics depending on quantum phase q=exp(i2pi/p) and p-adic prime.

I regard this result as extremely deep and among other things it leads to an identification of infinite number of discrete groups providing classical analogs of quantum groups. This is really beautiful since it realizes quantum classical correspondence and the notion of finite measurement resolution as discretization at the level of group theory.

 
At 5:29 AM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

Still a comment to Santeri relating to the interpretation of the p-adic physics.

Just today I realized a beautiful number theoretical interpretation of decoherence. Why Shrodinger amplitudes sometimes interfere and sometimes not?

For instance, in jet QCD it is essential to decompose the dynamics to slow part and fast part.
There is no interference between quantum amplitudes corresponding to long and short scales. This decomposition is somewhat loose mathematically although physically there is not doubt that it is correct. Is it an approximation or genuine physics?

Why there is no quantum interferences between long and short scales? The answer comes from p-adic physics. Suppose that real amplitudes are obtained from p-adic ones by a generalization of canonical identification. The p-adic amplitudes associated with two different p-adic primes cannot interfere because you cannot sum numbers belonging to different number fields. This would mean very precise definition of scale in jet calculations where one must use several scales simultaneously.

This same principle has been used also in mass calculations and it was surprising that it is directly visible also in jet QCD. p-Adic mass squared is summed when particles correspond to same value of p. If they correspond to different values one can sum only the real masses defined via canonical identification.

 
At 9:35 AM, Anonymous Orwin said...

Matti, that's like Weyl's second thoughts on matter and gauge, opening on the multi-particle Schroedinger wave. And now particle-specific metric. Weyl was so surprised not to find gravity there.

 
At 10:03 AM, Anonymous Orwin said...

I'm just really glad to see Slater vindicated after all these years. He wanted to study quantum flux between like atoms, but Bohr squashed it. This bugs me because it affects radiation data and radio-carbon dating etc., giving a sadly foreshortened view of history and heritage.

Despite that its important to take correspondence seriously - you could now chart your progress that way and 'own' the theme.

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Stephen Crowley said...

I read a couple of papers yesterday which made sense amazingly.. and if I wasn't having a calm demeanor would also be entirely freaked out by. Quartic higgs coupling... two quadratics.. quadratic irrationals have periodic continued fraction expansions.. Mellin transform of continued fraction map (Gauss map) is riemann zeta function.. transfer operator of the Gauss map.. find its eigenvalues.. infinite set of fractals leading to Minkowski question mark function... http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0105239 and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0507321

 
At 5:35 PM, Anonymous Satama said...

<<>>

Is the conjecture that pi is 'normal' (fifty-fifty zeros and ones in binary and as an infinite whole impartial to duality/chirality) true? If so, what is the information content of the pi-string in any base, that is as random as random gets but can be generated by relatively simple formulas? BTW is there any limit of manners - generative arithmetic and physical formulas - to generate pi? And if pi is normal, would it then be the numerological equivalent of ZEO - and all the quantum fluctuation in the world(s)?

Word verification string to publish this comment: "branedge". Ain't this fun! :)

 
At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Satama said...

Almost forgot, what is "pinary"?

Google only gives this pinary paradox:
http://popstrip.com/pinary-paradox/





(bear p r i e)

 
At 6:20 PM, Anonymous Satama said...

Pi and primes, these might interest:
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16991/what-are-the-connections-between-pi-and-prime-numbers
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/21367/proof-that-pi-is-transcendental-that-doesnt-use-the-infinitude-of-primes



wayins

 
At 8:25 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

To Orwin:

I decided to write about Higgs and TGD a posting. The message of the posting will be that my attitude to Higgs has developed from denial to almost acceptance to denial. This denial has nothing to do with bets: anyone can bet that Higgs exists or does not exist: without genuine justifications this kind of statements contain just single bit which is not much.

I give the main points below.

My original attitude was denial an based on following arguments natural in sub-manifold gravity.

a) TGD does not allow Higgs as a scalar in 8-D sense: this state would be leptoquark: Minkowski scalars are always H-vectors and have generalized polarization which can be also in the directions of CP_2 tangent space.

b) If Higgs is there it must behave like a SO(4) vector in CP_2 tangent space with different directions analogous to polarizations. The contractions of color isometry generators with the trace of second fundamental form would however give a color octet rather than complex electroweak doublet.

c) Higgs was not needed to give mass for fermions since p-adic thermodynamics takes care of this. There are however some problems in the understanding of gauge boson masses: some additional sources seems to be present.

For these reasons I believed for a long time that TGD does not predict Higgs. This is a dramatic prediction of sub-manifold gravitation.




These years have been endless n-sigma talk related to rumors about Higgs and as a genuine skeptic I made the question whether Higgs might exist also in TGD Universe. I had to understand the massivation of gauge bosons and how gauge bosons get their additional polarization state. Maybe Higgs cold give this state.

a) Bosonic emergence means that it must be a bound state of fermion and anti-fermion just as gauge bosons: they are associated with wormhole throats. Zero energy ontology leads to concrete realization of bosonic emergence.

b) What is certain that in TGD the possibly existing Higgs 4-plet would have same quantum numbers as electro-weak gauge bosons 3+1 as SU(2) multiplets. There would be nice 1-1 correspondence between Higgses and gauge bosons in CP_2 degrees of freedom. Only spin would be different. Sub-manifold gravity again.

c) Higgses could be there but gauge bosons would eat them to get longitudinal polarizations. All Higgs components would become longitudinal polarizations of Higgs boson. Also gauge bosons which are massless would receive small mass, including photon, gluon, and graviton. This resolves the infrared singularities and one obtains beautiful realization of twistorial approach in zero energy ontology. All massless multiplets would become massive and Higgs like states having also spins would disappear.

The problem is that one must postulate a lot of Higgs like particles and also their super-partners which would be also eaten. A complex reorganization of massless multiplets to massive multiplets would be needed. Why all this trouble?

To be continued...

 
At 8:28 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

To Orwin: continuation of previous response.


Now I am becoming a Higgs denialist again. There is no need for Higgs in TGD and TGD does not provide in any natural manner.

a) In ZEO just the condition that boson has spin 1 implies that it is massive and has therefore also the third polariization. There is no need to assume that it gets it by eating Higgs.

b) The recent advances in the formulation of generalized Feynman graphs led to the identification of the analog gauge condition eliminating unphysical polarizations. This condition allows three polarizations.

More precisely: One can assign to each causal diamond a preferred sub-manifold M^2 of M^4 defining preferred time direction and spin quantization axis. This 2-plane defines the analog for the plane in which Feynman graphs live and allows to realize the vision about generalized Feynman graphs as sub-manifold braids. M^2 corresponds in number theoretical vision to hyper-complex numbers regarded as a plane in the space of hyper-octonions.

c) The gauge condition says that allowed polarization vectors are orthogonal to the projection of the momentum of boson to M^2. Three polarization states are allowed instead of 2. All physical particles are massive.

The conclusion is that no Higgses are needed! Just as I believed from the beginning. The prodigal son returns back to his home!

 
At 8:58 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

To Santeri:

a) "Pinary" is generalization of "binary": bit has two values. Pinary digit has p values.


b) For rationals the pinary sequence is periodic after some digit and finite number of pinary digits characterizes a rational.

You cannot give explicit formula b(n)= f(n) for the n:th pinary digit of pi. You can of course generate arbitrary number of the digits using some series expansion giving pi as a value of a function at some points: for instance arcsi(x) at x=0. would give pi but it would require infinite amount of time to calculate all digits.

c) I not sure whether you meant numerical equivalent or numerological equivalent. The word "numerology" is a branch of theoretical physics which irritates me;-). I already raged about this to Ulla. Neither number theory nor TGD is numerology. I of course respect all numerologists;-): numerology is one attempt to understand reality;-).

The basic challenge is to identify the number theoretical structures underlying physics (p-adic physics, classical number fields, and infinite primes) and also generalize number theory itself (infinite primes, fusion of reals and p-adic numbers to a larger structure, number theoretic Brahman=Atman as infinitely complex number theoretical anatomy of space-time point, quantum arithmetics,..)

Colleagues as the natural enemies of any thinker -especially so the finnish ones - of course claim that "almost-predictions" of TGD [I speak of almost-predictions just because I want to remain skeptic] are nothing but a cheap numerology (p-adic length scale hypothesis, hierarchy of Planck constants,...).

There are alternative primitive reactions in the repertoire of colleague. He could tell to the innocent layman that TGD does not predict anything, that all the reasonings of TGD are circular, that TGD has nothing to do with physics, TGD is world salad, etc, etc... . Colleague would of course add that he would not touch to anything smelling like TGD even with a long stick: this is of course true and demonstrates that all their claims about TGD are taken from hat.


Sad to say but most scientists are much more like lawyers of a big company than truth seekers.

 
At 12:28 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

You are welcome :) Mitchell Porter promised to discuss Kea with me.
http://zone-reflex.blogspot.com/2011/12/keas-lost-thread-my-inquiry.html

Numerology in wikipedia: "Scientific theories are sometimes labeled "numerology" if their primary inspiration appears to be a set of patterns rather than scientific observations. This colloquial use of the term is quite common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to dismiss a theory as questionable science."

There are plenty for me to learn in this. I am looking at the se Sitter space and its foundations now. A finn Rink (?) is also tearing it down? What is then left to the string theory?

Gravity is a vector theory today, but in cosmology vectors are no good because they demand anti-gravity, so they tried scalars as Higgs? But scalars can be other form factors too, like primes and pi. I asked before about gravity and pi, but that was not so popular?

Is tensors no vectors? I think they also must be graded, so they are?

This new gluon plasma is acting like one single hadron? That is it is united? can this form of existence be 'behind the curtain' in 'dark existence'? But then the personal history is gone (no change of personal CD-lightcone), so only partially? It would explain the EPR-paradox?

 
At 8:22 AM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

To Ulla:

I want to make clear that I am not a believer on Higgs or no-Higgs as Kea is: this kind of belief contains just one bit of information or dis-information. If one claims that no Higgs is there, one must explain particle massivation: Kea provides no such explanation.

Wikipedia is polite about numerology;-). One must define set of patterns in a very loose manner to get numerology into picture.

Quark gluon plasma has transformed to strongly interacting quark gluon plasma. If we are ready to regard glass as plasma this terminology is ok.

I listened a Harward lecture of a jet specialist Ian Stewart about jet QCD. They are developing numerical methods which are strongly physics inspired and this is good. They believe that what they have got is QCD but it is more. Thanks to god that physicists do not take mathematical rigor too seriously. QCD taken rigorously would take us nowhere.

 
At 1:20 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Ok, I'll add your comment. There has been about 180 visitors already, with so little on the TGD-lessons blog. Now I try to compare Einstein and Poincare gravity. I would need some help :)

Look what I found on wikipedia: Differential topology is the study of (global) geometric invariants without a metric or symplectic form. It starts from the natural operations such as Lie derivative of natural vector bundles and forms.

Quite clearly said?

 
At 2:10 AM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

This is how it is. Modern mathematics is game with structures. One brings in topology, then differentiable structure, then symplectic structure, then metric, Kahler structure etc... Category theory in turn allows to group various structures. Same thinking is diffusing into theoretical physics and is extremely efficient. It is however methodology and method can never replace physical intuition.

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Ye, I must trust myself. But I need the history to follow the paths of thought, as they were.

Look:
http://visualphysics.org/sites/default/files/qqft.c1.2.special_relativity_tex_0.pdf

SR without metrics. What is the scalar then?

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/new-interpretation-for-the-observed-cosmological-redshifts/

possible implications on the interpretation of mass density of matter and mass as function of cosmological time.

Time=c.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home