Could this then mean there was no Big Bang?
Theoretical Physicist Paul Frampton seems to think so. Well, except for the Higgs thing, that's my two cents, which seems a natural thing to consider if the graviton-less gravitational field thing is true.
Read on!
As I write in the replies at Sabine "Bee" Hossenfelder's "What I Am Is What I Am" blog article at her blog, "BackReAction" :
Hi Bee,
Paul Frampton has a guest blog article at Lubos Motl's The Reference Frame up today, here.
Frampton has a copyright 2010 book to sell, btw, a link to which is included in his very short essay.
Well, who doesn't have a book to sell these days?
In any event Bee, your comments would be most welcome, as you're one of the "Pros from Dover" on things quantum gravity. As a former Thermodynamicist I'm all over Entropy (our baby) and am reviewing the theory (trawling out learned but "forgotten" facts from old neurons) re same and hope to add to the discussion within a week.
At issue is the elusive "graviton." Frampton states that one can have a gravitational field without a gravitational particle. Lubos takes issue of course in the replies section. Great irony and understandable, as the primary reason given by Ed Witten for leaving the world of Science (Physics) for Language (Mathematics - Superstrings division) in 1983 is because a spin-2 massless particle "fell out" of the new equations, that Susskind et. al. instantly dubbed "the graviton."
Stay tuned ..... UPDATES to follow ....
UPDATE Number One (that didn't take long): Smarter than Newton and Einstein?
Mitchell Porter in Lubos' reply section claims Paul Frampton is furiously editing his own Wikipedia entry. Is he? For the record, here is his current entry as of this moment, let's watch in time how it changes:
Paul Howard Frampton (born October 31, 1943, in England) is a particle phenomenologist. Since 1996, he is the Louis D. Rubin, Jr. Distinguished Professor of physics and astronomy, at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Born in Kidderminster, he attended King Charles I School, 1954-62, then Oxford University 1962-68. He received BA (Double First) in 1965, MA, DPhil in 1968, and DSc in 1984, degrees all from Oxford. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990), the American Physical Society (1981) and the Institute of Physics (1986).
Contents |
Research
Frampton's Oxford thesis analyzed the relationship between current algebra and superconvergence sum rules, and contained a 1967 sum rule[1], derived with Taylor. Two examples of extensions of the standard model are the chiral color model, in 1987, which predicts[2] axigluons and the 331 model[3], in 1992, which can explain the number of quark-lepton generations, and predicts bileptons. Bileptons and axigluons serve as targets of opportunity for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In 2002, with Glashow and Yanagida, he built a model relating matter-antimatter asymmetry in the early universe to measurements possible on Earth[4]. In slightly more formal directions, three examples are that he calculated, in 1976, the rate of vacuum decay in quantum field theory [5]; in 1982, he analyzed, with Kephart, ten-dimensional gauge field theory, and its hexagon anomaly, before the first superstring revolution[6]; in 1988, with Okada, he constructed [7] the lagrangian which describes the dynamics of the p-Adic string.In 2007, with Baum, he built, for cosmology, a cyclic model [8] which solved a 75-year-old entropy problem discussed by Tolman. In 2010, he proposed that [9]dark energy can be understood, by approximating the visible universe as a black hole.
Other activities
A Festschrift [10] for his 60th birthday, in 2003, included contributions by Glashow, 't Hooft, Veltman, and several other similarly-known physicists. A 2005 issue of International Journal of Modern Physics is dedicated to him.Publications
Frampton's first publication was Chirality Commutator and Vector Mesons, in 1967. He has published numerous articles in journals and conference proceedings. He was the author of a book[11] on string theory, in 1974 (2nd edition1986), when it was still named the dual resonance model. In 1986, he published a book[12] on quantum field theory (2nd edition 2000, 3rd edition 2008). A book[13] on cyclic cosmology, for the general public, was published in 2009.- P.H. Frampton and J.C. Taylor, Superconvergence Sum Rules in Pi-Rho Scattering, Nuov. Cim. 49A, 152 (1967).
- P.H. Frampton and Yoichiro Nambu, Asymptotic Behavior of Partial Widths , published in Wentzel's festschrift (1970).
- P.H. Frampton and T.W. Kephart, Anomalies in Higher Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1343, 1347 (1983); Phys. Rev. D28, 1010 (1983).
- P.H. Frampton and Sheldon L. Glashow, Chiral Color: Alternative to the Standard Model, Phys. Lett. 190B, 157 (1987); Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2168 (1987).
- P.H. Frampton and Y. Okada, Effective Scalar Field Theory of the p-Adic String, Phys. Rev. D37, 3077 (1988).
- P.H. Frampton, Chiral Dilepton Model and the Flavor Question, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2889 (1992).
- P.H. Frampton, Sheldon L. Glashow and T. Yanagida, Cosmological Sign of Neutrino CP Violation, Phys. Lett. B548 119 (2002).
- La Belle Epoque of High Energy Physics and Cosmology, Editors: T. Curtright, S. Mintz and A. Perlmutter, World Scientific Publishing Company (2004).
- International Journal of Modern Physics Volume A20 No 6 March 10 2005 dedicated to Paul Frampton.
- L. Baum and P.H. Frampton, Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 071301 (2007).
- Paul Howard Frampton, Solution to the Dark Energy Problem. arXiv: 1004.1285 [astro-ph.CO] (2010).
Other publications
- First Workshop on Grand Unification, Editors: P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow and A. Yildiz. Math Sci Press, Brookline (1980).
- Third Workshop on Grand Unification, Editors: P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow and H. Van Dam. Birkhauser (1982).
- North Carolina site proposal for superconducting super collider: Volumes 1. Executive summary, 2. Offer, financial and other incentives, 3. Geology and tunneling, 4. Regional resources, 5. Environment, 6. Setting, 7. Regional conditions, 8. Utilities, 9. Map supplement. Project Director: P.H. Frampton. Project Manager: W. Dunn. Governor's Science Adviser: E. MacCormac. Advised by employees of the North Carolina State Government and others. Submitted by the office of the Governor to the U.S. Department of Energy (1987).
- Last Workshop on Grand Unification, Editor: P.H. Frampton. World Scientific Publishing Company (1989).
- Eighth International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology (PASCOS), Editors: P.H. Frampton and Y.J. Ng. Rinton Press (2001).
References
- ^ Frampton, P. H.; J. C. Taylor (1967). "Superconvergence sum rules in pi-rho scattering". Nuovo Cimento 49A: 152–156.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H.; Sheldon L. Glashow (1987). "Chiral color: An alternative to the standard model". Physics Letters B (Elsevier) 190 (1-2): 157–161. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-472JMJG-P5&_user=130907&_coverDate=05%2F21%2F1987&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=446284cdf511b824c8ac0e45a8d29164.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H. (1992). "Chiral dilepton model and the flavor question" (subscription required). Physical Review Letters (The American Physical Society) 69 (20): p2889–p2891. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2889. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v69/p2889.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H; Sheldon L Glashow and Tsutomo Yanagida (2002). "Cosmological Sign of Neutrino CP Violation". Physics Letters (Elsevier) B548: 119–121.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H. (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass" (subscription required). Physical Review Letters (The American Physical Society) 37 (21): 1378–1380. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v37/p1378.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H.; Thomas W. Kephart (1983). "Explicit Evaluation of Anomalies in Higher Dimensions" (subscription required). Physical Review Letters (The American Physical Society) 50 (18): 1343–1346. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1343. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v50/p1343.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H; Yasuhiro Okada (1988). "Effective Scalar Field Theory of the p-Adic String". Physical Review D37: 3077–3079.
- ^ Baum, Lauris; Frampton Paul H. (2007). "Turnaround in cyclic cosmology". Physical Review Letters (The American Physical Society) 98 (7): 071301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.071301. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v98/e071301.
- ^ P.H. Frampton (2010). [http//arxiv.org/abs/1004.0258 "Solution to the Dark Energy problem"]. http//arxiv.org/abs/1004.0258.
- ^ Curtright, Thomas; Mintz, Stephan; Perlmutter, Arnold (2004). "La Belle Epoche of High Energy Physics and Cosmology". World Scientific Publishing Company.. http://server.physics.miami.edu/~cgc/2003CGC.html.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H. (1974). Dual resonance models. Frontiers in Physics, W. A. Benjamin. ISBN 978-0805325812.
- ^ Frampton, Paul H. (1986). Gauge field theories. Frontiers in Physics, Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0471347835.
- ^ Frampton, Paul Howard (2009). Did Time Begin? Will Time End?. World Scientific Publishing Company. ISBN 978-981-4280-58-7.
4 comments:
Hi Steven,
Can we have a field without having a particle, is to me as to ask if we might be able to have a tsunami wave without first having the potential of the earth to suddenly rise up to have the surrounding waters to so react. Then again we might look at your proposition purely mathematically as to use the Mandelbrot set as an example, with as its solution is iterated through time it moves progressively inward while remaining self similar. However, can we say that the pattern formed would still exist unless also the potential that has it to be also exists as well? I would therefore ask with the set the potential rests with what, which you could say is merely the form of the mathematics and yet I would ask how as to why such a potential was initially mandated.
Best,
Phil
Can we have a field without having a particle, is to me as to ask if we might be able to have a tsunami wave without first having the potential of the earth to suddenly rise up to have the surrounding waters to so react.
That depends on what one means by "wave" and "particles", Phil. In classical theory, Newton's, a field exists without particles. In Quantum Field Theory, in which Dirac unified Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, everything is a wave, even particles. The "particles" responsible for communicating with "matter particles" via field "lines" are called "force bosons." In Electromagnetism (QED), they are photons; in Electroweak (Weak Force), they are the W and Z bosons; in QCD (Strong Force) they are gluons.
I personally don't think of Gravity as a "force" per se like these others. Einstein (who died 55 years ago today in '55) showed us in 1915 that Gravity is a geometrical consequence of 4-D spacetime.
On this reasoning alone I have always rejected the "graviton" as a "particle." IF gravitons exist, then how can these "force boson particles" escape the event horizon of a black hole, when nothing else can?
The wave that forms a tsunami (tidal wave) still exists far from shore, albeit only an inch or so high. I could analogize with a photon hitting an electron, but trouble would ensue. ;-}
Then again we might look at your proposition purely mathematically as to use the Mandelbrot set as an example, with as its solution is iterated through time it moves progressively inward while remaining self similar.
At first I didn't like this comment but again, by analogy, turtles all the way down?
However, can we say that the pattern formed would still exist unless also the potential that has it to be also exists as well?
I don't understand this question, and therefore the rest of your comment.
Hi Steven,
I’m aware of all of what you are saying, yet it’s not quite right to call Newton’s gravity the action of a field, yet rather some spooky force acting without explanation of media through distance instantaneously. This I’ve always found interesting as the fundamentals at the very foundations of QM also ask us to simply to accept something similar, without explanation of media in respect to force. Now what Maxwell brought to light for electromagnetic’s and later Einstein for gravity where true field theories and yet only Einstien’s had a media described with that being the space-time fabric itself, whereas matter/energy distorting its architecture in reaction to its presence accounts for what is observed.
So basically as you noted with QM we have a theory whose commonly held ontology is singular in nature and with GR being one that is dual. I would remind as you noted that QM had to be first be made relativistic to have it better able to describe as to have predictive the forces other then gravity known in nature, rather than the other way around. So admittedly GR gives no insight into how things are or behave at resolutions and densities being queried today and yet neither does QM or its accepted as working extensions
Personally I think we are currently at a place similar to one beginning about a hundred years after Newton, where Legrangian and Hamiltonian mathematical treatment of Newtonian concepts were thought to have removed all the mystery it held, when in fact they only served to increase them. So if I were a betting man I would wager that perhaps in another hundred years or so there might come to be some understanding of what forms to be the solution of current deadlock and that solution will metaphysically be required having a dual ontological underpinning.
”From man or angel the great Architect
Did wisely to conceal, and not divulge
His secrets to be scanned by them who ought
Rather admire; or if they list to try
Conjecture, he his fabric of the heav'ns
Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move
His laughter at their quaint opinions wide
Hereafter, when they come to model heav'n
And calculate the stars, how they will wield
The mighty frame, how build, unbuild, contrive
To save appearances, how gird the sphere
With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er,
Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb.”
Milton-Paradise Lost
Best,
Phil
I’m aware of all of what you are saying, yet it’s not quite right to call Newton’s gravity the action of a field, yet rather some spooky force acting without explanation of media through distance instantaneously.
Again I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure who the object of "not quite right" is. Me? Or others? I hope you meant others.
Phil, I wish you'd re-write that first sentence as three sentences, because as written I have 3 different interpretations of it. This is advice I give myself as well when writing technically. When talking metaphysically or philosophically, long sentences are fine. But technical writing involves many objects or nouns, and it's not always clear therefore what we are referring to when our sentences are long. For example, who's talking about spooky action (at a distance, I presume). I'm not. Gravity works at near-light speed, as we know. Nothing spooky there, right?
For myself, Gen Rev says the spacetime fabric is warped by mass, whatever the heck "mass" is (many say it's Higgs ... um, maybe, I'll be openminded till LHC spits/doesn't spit them out).
Objects within said warped fabric then follow a continuous (not discrete unless you wish to go Planck-scale) path, and the path is interpreted as gravity.
Holographic conjecture says a 2D spacetime on a boundary without gravity is equivalent to a 3D spacetime with gravity inside the boundary. If that doesn't blow one's mind, what does?
Post a Comment