Predictions Verified and New Theories Made

and what about this?
DIDN’T I TELL YOU ALL 5 YEARS AGO THAT THERE ARE TWO UNIVERSES THAT ARE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE WITH REVERSE ARROWS OF TIME?
woah I am amazed at how much this matches what I had said….

The theoretical claims put forward in the Physical Review Lettersjournal could revolutionise the field of research into the origin and future of the universe.

In the paper titled ‘Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time’, an international team of world renowned scientists led by Oxfordshire-based Dr Julian Barbour challenge assumptions about the so called ‘arrow of time’.

The ‘arrow of time’ is the theory that time is symmetric and therefore time moves forward. They contend that there is no scientific reason that a mirror universe could not have been created where time moved in an distinct way from our own.

But in a quirk of science it is thought that if a parallel universe did exist where time moved backward, any sentient beings there would consider that time in our universe in fact moved backward

What I said a few years ago:

https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633

note the date and the part about arrows of time flowing opposite relative to each other but forward relative to themselves 😉

Proof of Concept Origin

January 5, 2013
Basically, in my book I conjecture on a new theory of everything; in my theory each dimension can be analoged to a primary color….. in our universe each spatial dimension would be equivalent to an additive primary color (RGB) with time as the background (Black) with a complementary spacetime which consisted of dimensions that analoged to the subtractive primary colors (CMY) with complementary time as the background (White) as one space expanded the other contracts and vice versa (because the arrow of time flows opposite to each other but forward within each), It’s been peer reviewed and it seems there’s some excitement over this as this would solve the dark matter / dark energy problem by unifying the strong nuclear force and gravity (the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons and color charge and analoging dimensions to primary colors is gravity’s version of color charge) so now we have a strong force-gravity unification and an electroweak unification and we just need to combine those dualities. There are four layers to the omniverse, with universes of different dimensions in each layer (the number of dimensions in each layer bear a pythagorean relationship to the other layers and each universe has a parent superverse from whose parent black hole it was created. If you loop through the entire hierarchy of universes you end up back where you started, so the omniverse is not only cyclical time, but also in space. I guess I’ll leave that for a sequel lol.
BTW if there are multiple timelines they would be created right after the big bang, by the force of inflation and be emergent diverging timelines along two dimensions of time (think cartesian coordinates) and if the cyclic model is correct and dark flow does reverse the expansion of space, the time lines would converge once again with a Big Bounce as the universe deflated (rinse and repeat.) The antiverse would have opposing cycles (because the arrow of time was opposite compared to ours) and if there was someway to construct some sort of device (a la star gate) to tap into the barrier which separates the two (consisting of light, which does not experience the passage of time) than both time and long distance space travel would become possible through the second temporal dimension (which keeps each timeline intact)…… according to Einstein the past, present and future all coexist and it is we who move through them, so theoretically this should be possible. He also stated that the universe (or omniverse on a larger scale) created us in order to understand itself better, forming the framework for a cosmic collective mind which encompasses not only humans, but animals, plants, alien life, even whole planets (Gaia Theory, which has been proven multiple times) and even stars and galaxies, the only difference is the density of the level of consciousness, although planets (for example) are much larger than any single life form, their density of consciousness is much less, with their “memories” (fossil record) spread out over a much larger area, so any one spot (on our scale) is seemingly lifeless. But it’s not. The planet consists of a complicated series of checks and balances and delicate interplay between different parts that can and should be considered alive.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

Barbour and his colleagues argue that it is gravity, rather than thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time’s arrow fly.
Looks like they also caught on to my idea that gravity and time are directly related since time is just as out of place with the other 3 dimensions as gravity is with the other 3 forces.
Also
 
Basically a carbon copy of my two time lane two universe theory from years ago.
 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

Barbour and his colleagues argue that it is gravity, rather than thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time’s arrow fly.
Looks like they also caught on to my idea that gravity and time are directly related since time is just as out of place with the other 3 dimensions as gravity is with the other 3 forces.
Also
 
Basically a carbon copy of my two time lane two universe theory from years ago.
 

10:33AM GMT 23 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html
“The detection of miniature black holes by the Large Hadron Collider could prove the existence of parallel universes and show that the Big Bang did not happen, scientists believe.

The particle accelerator, which will be restarted this week, has already found the Higgs boson – the God Particle – which is thought to give mass to other particles.
Now scientists at Cern in Switzerland believe they might find miniature black holes which would reveal the existence of a parallel universe.
And if the holes are found at a certain energy, it could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started, and no Big Bang”.
They talk about The Big Crunch but in my opinion rather than the Big Crunch, we would have the Big Bounce(s), because as the universe shrinks, the effects of gravity will wane and then disappear (at 2D- at least according to Relativity) and then the universe will re-expand.

this discovery will bolster the chances for time travel

http://www.analogsf.com/0610/altview.shtml

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGMQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmysteriousuniverse.org%2F2014%2F06%2Fhave-we-discovered-the-secret-of-dark-matter%2F&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFYDXgnlQBfjkyuorNoC-RVOHED1w&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CF0QFjAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slackerastronomy.org%2Ftranscripts%2F060418-SterileNeutrinos.pdf&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEKt4d51NVR91h6WbCcCqskNXTL1A&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFQQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2014-08-dark.html&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFuHiOTDnrcbRrZRmo5O0o4E24XRw&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE4QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS055032131400296X&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGpravNIHdTMCW3Si5Y6WsFEc2EtA&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphysicsworld.com%2Fcws%2Farticle%2Fnews%2F2014%2Ffeb%2F18%2Fcould-sterile-neutrinos-solve-the-cosmological-mass-conundrum&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFUTupdGq3hHHLBiUVg9nFpokphJA&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1406.5739&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNENwG2ay-0wucGfxJsE7UNIunXSiA&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1402.1453&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGcs-fdMeiit-3f__r3Bo6LSeIRIA&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

https://books.google.com/books?id=rp1J79EdAPMC&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=sterile+neutrino+goes+back+in+time&source=bl&ots=jEs2MQzkR8&sig=BNxZr1Dk-9bj1BqE3sBig1LXua4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fnews%2Fcosmic-mismatch-hints-at-the-existence-of-a-sterile-neutrino-1.14752&ei=8U4QVcKtI_CHsQSghoL4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFLSPV5q3N8a1cZjGBtnjsjM4lm2Q&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html#ajTabs

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-gravity-universe-big.html#inlRlv

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-gravity-universe-big.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-dark-side-cosmology.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-lumpy-universe-cosmic.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-landmark-magnets.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-stars.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-lhcb-analysis-puzzle.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-lhcb-analysis-puzzle.html#nRlv

Thanks Philip for posting this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

and what about this?

DIDN’T I TELL YOU ALL 5 YEARS AGO THAT THERE ARE TWO UNIVERSES THAT ARE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE WITH REVERSE ARROWS OF TIME?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html

woah I am amazed at how much this matches what I had said….

The theoretical claims put forward in the Physical Review Lettersjournal could revolutionise the field of research into the origin and future of the universe.
In the paper titled ‘Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time’, an international team of world renowned scientists led by Oxfordshire-based Dr Julian Barbour challenge assumptions about the so called ‘arrow of time’.
The ‘arrow of time’ is the theory that time is symmetric and therefore time moves forward. They contend that there is no scientific reason that a mirror universe could not have been created where time moved in an distinct way from our own.
But in a quirk of science it is thought that if a parallel universe did exist where time moved backward, any sentient beings there would consider that time in our universe in fact moved backward

What I said a few years ago:

https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633

note the date and the part about arrows of time flowing opposite relative to each other but forward relative to themselves 😉

Proof of Concept Origin
January 5, 2013
Basically, in my book I conjecture on a new theory of everything; in my theory each dimension can be analoged to a primary color….. in our universe each spatial dimension would be equivalent to an additive primary color (RGB) with time as the background (Black) with a complementary spacetime which consisted of dimensions that analoged to the subtractive primary colors (CMY) with complementary time as the background (White) as one space expanded the other contracts and vice versa (because the arrow of time flows opposite to each other but forward within each), It’s been peer reviewed and it seems there’s some excitement over this as this would solve the dark matter / dark energy problem by unifying the strong nuclear force and gravity (the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons and color charge and analoging dimensions to primary colors is gravity’s version of color charge) so now we have a strong force-gravity unification and an electroweak unification and we just need to combine those dualities. There are four layers to the omniverse, with universes of different dimensions in each layer (the number of dimensions in each layer bear a pythagorean relationship to the other layers and each universe has a parent superverse from whose parent black hole it was created. If you loop through the entire hierarchy of universes you end up back where you started, so the omniverse is not only cyclical time, but also in space. I guess I’ll leave that for a sequel lol.

BTW if there are multiple timelines they would be created right after the big bang, by the force of inflation and be emergent diverging timelines along two dimensions of time (think cartesian coordinates) and if the cyclic model is correct and dark flow does reverse the expansion of space, the time lines would converge once again with a Big Bounce as the universe deflated (rinse and repeat.) The antiverse would have opposing cycles (because the arrow of time was opposite compared to ours) and if there was someway to construct some sort of device (a la star gate) to tap into the barrier which separates the two (consisting of light, which does not experience the passage of time) than both time and long distance space travel would become possible through the second temporal dimension (which keeps each timeline intact)…… according to Einstein the past, present and future all coexist and it is we who move through them, so theoretically this should be possible. He also stated that the universe (or omniverse on a larger scale) created us in order to understand itself better, forming the framework for a cosmic collective mind which encompasses not only humans, but animals, plants, alien life, even whole planets (Gaia Theory, which has been proven multiple times) and even stars and galaxies, the only difference is the density of the level of consciousness, although planets (for example) are much larger than any single life form, their density of consciousness is much less, with their “memories” (fossil record) spread out over a much larger area, so any one spot (on our scale) is seemingly lifeless. But it’s not. The planet consists of a complicated series of checks and balances and delicate interplay between different parts that can and should be considered alive.

Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow Mar 21
@GaryABro You might like this.A synopsis of my time and space travel ideas based on quantum mechanics and cosmology …https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex I read it and I’m not convinced of two things: (1) an inference of orthogonality of the dimensions, and (2) that the past
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex …can be navigated, only viewed. I contend we are viewing the past through a cosmic “lens” supported by travel of photons
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex …and to truly have the time vector point in anything but one direction (forward), our “lens” would have encompassed this
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex … another words, I contend it would have manifested itself in some cosmic artifact, which it has not, Even when we talk
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex …about what happens in a Black Hole, we say time slows down to the observer upon falling in but never that it reverses
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex …do you follow my logic here?
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex Just one more thing…If theories of quantum entanglement pan out, which they might, then that will lead to …
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex quantum retro-causality which can then explain the time arrow. So who knows? All I”m saying is that in any given universe
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex I think the time arrow moves in one direction, and for ours its forward 🙂 Although, I’d really like it to move backwards
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorite1
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex so I can get younger :-))))
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex Oh hell, let’s just ask Leonard Suskind and be done with it! LOL!
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 22
@SuperManBatAlex you re the expert man! I just dabble in it 😉
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow Mar 23
@GaryABro back down to 2D, and re-bang with some information from previous cycle remaining to create structures in the next one
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
User Actions
Following

Gary Brown
‏@GaryABro
@ManOfTommorrow intriguing. How would one “jump across” timeline “swim lanes”?
Reply Retweet Favorited
More
FAVORITE
1
Alex The Great Kalel
7:32 AM – 23 Mar 2015

Tweet text
Reply to @GaryABro
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 13h13 hours ago
@GaryABro Now that is the question- going sidewise in time would involve the existence and navigation of a second time dimnension
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 13h13 hours ago
@GaryABro akin to Stephen Hawking’s Imaginary Time, whose axis would run perpendicular to conventional time.
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 13h13 hours ago
@GaryABro Theoreticians like the idea of a second dimension of time since it removes the singularity at the big bang
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 13h13 hours ago
@GaryABro And allows time to exist both before and after it.
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro Sterile Neutrinos (which may have recently been discovered in star clusters) can travel back in time http://www.analogsf.com/0610/altview.shtml
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro Gravity and Time combined hold the key to everything…..
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro Gravity doesn’t fit in with the other 3 forces and Time doesn’t fit in with the other 3 dimensions, but they seem to work together
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro for example inside black holes- and maybe sterile neutrinos 😉
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro here’s articles from Nature http://www.nature.com/news/cosmic-mismatch-hints-at-the-existence-of-a-sterile-neutrino-1.14752 … and Physorg http://phys.org/news/2014-08-dark.html
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorite1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro Here’s something on the collapse of the universe, maybe they forget about Einstein figuring out gravity doesn’t work on smallscale
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html#ajTabs
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 12h12 hours ago
@GaryABro Some other articles at the bottom of the page are also interesting, research seems to be accelerating here.
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 2h2 hours ago
@GaryABro another thing to note is how fractal the universe is on different levels, from atoms, to solar systems to galaxies
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 2h2 hours ago
@GaryABro it may help explain why ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristole intuitively understood so much- when you look at a large map
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 2h2 hours ago
@GaryABro that depicts how superclusters of galaxies are clumped, it remarkably resembles the brain
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 2h2 hours ago
@GaryABro btw it’s ironic they mentioned dark energy which is measured by the Cosmological Constant whose weird value can be explained
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 2h2 hours ago
@GaryABro as a function of a cyclic universe as its winding down, the value gets closer to 0-started out at 1 at the beginning of the cycle
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 19m19 minutes ago
@GaryABro Look familiar Gary? 😉 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html … Just saw this if verified 1 of my biggest predictions from yrs ago would come true
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 17m17 minutes ago
@GaryABro here’s another one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2868238/Did-Big-Bang-create-mirror-universe-time-moves-BACKWARDS-New-theory-explain-past-future.html … I swear it seems almost the exact same thing as I theorized- lucky mine has a date stamp
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow 19s19 seconds ago
@GaryABro I love how they are putting the pieces together http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/ … and now see the gravity-time connection also
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel ‏@ManOfTommorrow now
@GaryABro this gives us my aforementioned way to time travel which involves universe-hopping.
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite View Tweet activity
More

Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex Just one more thing…If theories of quantum entanglement pan out, which they might, then that will lead to …
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex quantum retro-causality which can then explain the time arrow. So who knows? All I”m saying is that in any given universe
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex I think the time arrow moves in one direction, and for ours its forward 🙂 Although, I’d really like it to move backwards
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorite1
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex so I can get younger :-))))
0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 21
@SuperManBatAlex Oh hell, let’s just ask Leonard Suskind and be done with it! LOL!
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1
More
Gary Brown ‏@GaryABro Mar 22
@SuperManBatAlex you re the expert man! I just dabble in it 😉
10:39 AM – 22 Mar 2015 · Details
Hide conversation 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/ … note the gravity-time relation I predicted also gravity, rather than thermodynamics, let time’s arrow fly.
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 51m 51 minutes ago
2 Futures Can Explain Time’s Mysterious Past http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/ … same as mine from yrs ago …https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 52m 52 minutes ago
same as mine from yrs ago …https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633 http://fb.me/35v27dtiC
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 54m 54 minutes ago
Yes, this is exactly the same thing I predicted years ago- here’s proof… http://fb.me/7ba83xys7
View summary 0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 55m 55 minutes ago
Did the Big Bang cause a ‘mirror universe’ where time moves backwards? http://dailym.ai/165yad0 via @MailOnline I predicted this yrs ago
View summary 0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 55m 55 minutes ago
yes this is exactly the same thing I predicted years ago and here’s proof… http://fb.me/1xJVGy2ke
View summary 0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 57m 57 minutes ago
here’s another one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2868238/Did-Big-Bang-create-mirror-universe-time-moves-BACKWARDS-New-theory-explain-past-future.html … this seems just like what I wrote yrs ago glad mine has a date stamp lol
View summary 0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 1h 1 hour ago
compare especially the parts about equal but opposite arrows of time but both forward relative to themselves and backwards to each other
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 1h 1 hour ago
compare this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html … to this which I said a few yrs ago …https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 1h 1 hour ago
If this comes to pass, my prediction from a few years ago will have been spot on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html
0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 2h 2 hours ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html … Also may find parallel universes and rainbow gravity
View summary 0 retweets 1 favorite
Reply Retweet Favorited1 View Tweet activity
More
Alex The Great Kalel @ManOfTommorrow · 2h 2 hours ago
Mounting evidence for a cyclical universe rather than just one Big Bang http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

and what about this?

DIDN’T I TELL YOU ALL 5 YEARS AGO THAT THERE ARE TWO UNIVERSES THAT ARE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE WITH REVERSE ARROWS OF TIME?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html

woah I am amazed at how much this matches what I had said….

The theoretical claims put forward in the Physical Review Lettersjournal could revolutionise the field of research into the origin and future of the universe.
In the paper titled ‘Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time’, an international team of world renowned scientists led by Oxfordshire-based Dr Julian Barbour challenge assumptions about the so called ‘arrow of time’.
The ‘arrow of time’ is the theory that time is symmetric and therefore time moves forward. They contend that there is no scientific reason that a mirror universe could not have been created where time moved in an distinct way from our own.
But in a quirk of science it is thought that if a parallel universe did exist where time moved backward, any sentient beings there would consider that time in our universe in fact moved backward

What I said a few years ago:

https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633

note the date and the part about arrows of time flowing opposite relative to each other but forward relative to themselves 😉

Proof of Concept Origin
January 5, 2013
Basically, in my book I conjecture on a new theory of everything; in my theory each dimension can be analoged to a primary color….. in our universe each spatial dimension would be equivalent to an additive primary color (RGB) with time as the background (Black) with a complementary spacetime which consisted of dimensions that analoged to the subtractive primary colors (CMY) with complementary time as the background (White) as one space expanded the other contracts and vice versa (because the arrow of time flows opposite to each other but forward within each), It’s been peer reviewed and it seems there’s some excitement over this as this would solve the dark matter / dark energy problem by unifying the strong nuclear force and gravity (the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons and color charge and analoging dimensions to primary colors is gravity’s version of color charge) so now we have a strong force-gravity unification and an electroweak unification and we just need to combine those dualities. There are four layers to the omniverse, with universes of different dimensions in each layer (the number of dimensions in each layer bear a pythagorean relationship to the other layers and each universe has a parent superverse from whose parent black hole it was created. If you loop through the entire hierarchy of universes you end up back where you started, so the omniverse is not only cyclical time, but also in space. I guess I’ll leave that for a sequel lol.

BTW if there are multiple timelines they would be created right after the big bang, by the force of inflation and be emergent diverging timelines along two dimensions of time (think cartesian coordinates) and if the cyclic model is correct and dark flow does reverse the expansion of space, the time lines would converge once again with a Big Bounce as the universe deflated (rinse and repeat.) The antiverse would have opposing cycles (because the arrow of time was opposite compared to ours) and if there was someway to construct some sort of device (a la star gate) to tap into the barrier which separates the two (consisting of light, which does not experience the passage of time) than both time and long distance space travel would become possible through the second temporal dimension (which keeps each timeline intact)…… according to Einstein the past, present and future all coexist and it is we who move through them, so theoretically this should be possible. He also stated that the universe (or omniverse on a larger scale) created us in order to understand itself better, forming the framework for a cosmic collective mind which encompasses not only humans, but animals, plants, alien life, even whole planets (Gaia Theory, which has been proven multiple times) and even stars and galaxies, the only difference is the density of the level of consciousness, although planets (for example) are much larger than any single life form, their density of consciousness is much less, with their “memories” (fossil record) spread out over a much larger area, so any one spot (on our scale) is seemingly lifeless. But it’s not. The planet consists of a complicated series of checks and balances and delicate interplay between different parts that can and should be considered alive.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

Barbour and his colleagues argue that it is gravity, rather than thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time’s arrow fly.

Looks like they also caught on to my idea that gravity and time are directly related since time is just as out of place with the other 3 dimensions as gravity is with the other 3 forces.

Also

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2868238/Did-Big-Bang-create-mirror-universe-time-moves-BACKWARDS-New-theory-explain-past-future.html#comments

Basically a carbon copy of my two time lane two universe theory from years ago.

https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

Barbour and his colleagues argue that it is gravity, rather than thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time’s arrow fly.

Looks like they also caught on to my idea that gravity and time are directly related since time is just as out of place with the other 3 dimensions as gravity is with the other 3 forces.

Also

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2868238/Did-Big-Bang-create-mirror-universe-time-moves-BACKWARDS-New-theory-explain-past-future.html#comments

Basically a carbon copy of my two time lane two universe theory from years ago.

https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.shutterfly.com/2633

2 Futures Can Explain Time’s Mysterious Past

New theories suggest the big bang was not the beginning, and that we may live in the past of a parallel universe
Thousands of galaxies fill an image from the Hubble Space Telescope
In the evolution of cosmic structure, is entropy or gravity the more dominant force? The answer to this question has deep implications for the universe’s future, as well as its past.
Credit: NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team

Physicists have a problem with time.Whether through Newton’s gravitation, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, Einstein’s special and general relativity or quantum mechanics, all the equations that best describe our universe work perfectly if time flows forward or backward.Of course the world we experience is entirely different. The universe is expanding, not contracting. Stars emit light rather than absorb it, and radioactive atoms decay rather than reassemble. Omelets don’t transform back to unbroken eggs and cigarettes never coalesce from smoke and ashes. We remember the past, not the future, and we grow old and decrepit, not young and rejuvenated. For us, time has a clear and irreversible direction. It flies forward like a missile, equations be damned.

For more than a century, the standard explanation for “time’s arrow,” as the astrophysicist Arthur Eddington first called it in 1927, has been that it is an emergent property of thermodynamics, as first laid out in the work of the 19th-century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann. In this view what we perceive as the arrow of time is really just the inexorable rearrangement of highly ordered states into random, useless configurations, a product of the universal tendency for all things to settle toward equilibrium with one another.

Informally speaking, the crux of this idea is that “things fall apart,” but more formally, it is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, which Boltzmann helped devise. The law states that in any closed system (like the universe itself), entropy—disorder—can only increase. Increasing entropy is a cosmic certainty because there are always a great many more disordered states than orderly ones for any given system, similar to how there are many more ways to scatter papers across a desk than to stack them neatly in a single pile.

The thermodynamic arrow of time suggests our observable universe began in an exceptionally special state of high order and low entropy, like a pristine cosmic egg materializing at the beginning of time to be broken and scrambled for all eternity. From Boltzmann’s era onward, scientists allergic to the notion of such an immaculate conception have been grappling with this conundrum.

Boltzmann, believing the universe to be eternal in accordance with Newton’s laws, thought that eternity could explain a low-entropy origin for time’s arrow. Given enough time—endless time, in fact—anything that can happen will happen, including the emergence of a large region of very low entropy as a statistical fluctuation from an ageless, high-entropy universe in a state of near-equilibrium. Boltzmann mused that we might live in such an improbable region, with an arrow of time set by the region’s long, slow entropic slide back into equilibrium.

Today’s cosmologists have a tougher task, because the universe as we now know it isn’t ageless and unmoving: They have to explain the emergence of time’s arrow within a dynamic, relativistic universe that apparently began some 14 billion years ago in the fiery conflagration of the big bang. More often than not the explanation involves ‘fine-tuning’—the careful and arbitrary tweaking of a theory’s parameters to accord with observations.

Many of the modern explanations for a low-entropy arrow of time involve a theory called inflation—the idea that a strange burst of antigravity ballooned the primordial universe to an astronomically larger size, smoothing it out into what corresponds to a very low-entropy state from which subsequent cosmic structures could emerge. But explaining inflation itself seems to require even more fine-tuning. One of the problems is that once begun, inflation tends to continue unstoppably. This “eternal inflation” would spawn infinitudes of baby universes about which predictions and observations are, at best, elusive. Whether this is an undesirable bug or a wonderful feature of the theory is a matter of fierce debate; for the time being it seems that inflation’s extreme flexibility and explanatory power are both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

For all these reasons, some scientists seeking a low-entropy origin for time’s arrow find explanations relying on inflation slightly unsatisfying. “There are many researchers now trying to show in some natural way why it’s reasonable to expect the initial entropy of the universe to be very low,” says David Albert, a philosopher and physicist at Columbia University. “There are even some who think that the entropy being low at the beginning of the universe should just be added as a new law of physics.”

That latter idea is tantamount to despairing cosmologists simply throwing in the towel. Fortunately, there may be another way.

Tentative new work from Julian Barbour of the University of Oxford, Tim Koslowski of the University of New Brunswick and Flavio Mercati of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics suggests that perhaps the arrow of time doesn’t really require a fine-tuned, low-entropy initial state at all but is instead the inevitable product of the fundamental laws of physics. Barbour and his colleagues argue that it is gravity, rather than thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time’s arrow fly. Their findingswere published in October in Physical Review Letters.

The team’s conclusions come from studying an exceedingly simple proxy for our universe, a computer simulation of 1,000 pointlike particles interacting under the influence of Newtonian gravity. They investigated the dynamic behavior of the system using a measure of its “complexity,” which corresponds to the ratio of the distance between the system’s closest pair of particles and the distance between the most widely separated particle pair. The system’s complexity is at its lowest when all the particles come together in a densely packed cloud, a state of minimum size and maximum uniformity roughly analogous to the big bang. The team’s analysis showed that essentially every configuration of particles, regardless of their number and scale, would evolve into this low-complexity state. Thus, the sheer force of gravity sets the stage for the system’s expansion and the origin of time’s arrow, all without any delicate fine-tuning to first establish a low-entropy initial condition.

From that low-complexity state, the system of particles then expands outward in bothtemporal directions, creating two distinct, symmetric and opposite arrows of time. Along each of the two temporal paths, gravity then pulls the particles into larger, more ordered and complex structures—the model’s equivalent of galaxy clusters, stars and planetary systems. From there, the standard thermodynamic passage of time can manifest and unfold on each of the two divergent paths. In other words, the model has one past but two futures. As hinted by the time-indifferent laws of physics, time’s arrow may in a sense move in two directions, although any observer can only see and experience one. “It is the nature of gravity to pull the universe out of its primordial chaos and create structure, order and complexity,” Mercati says. “All the solutions break into two epochs, which go on forever in the two time directions, divided by this central state which has very characteristic properties.”

Although the model is crude, and does not incorporate either quantum mechanics or general relativity, its potential implications are vast. If it holds true for our actual universe, then the big bang could no longer be considered a cosmic beginning but rather only a phase in an effectively timeless and eternal universe. More prosaically, a two-branched arrow of time would lead to curious incongruities for observers on opposite sides. “This two-futures situation would exhibit a single, chaotic past in both directions, meaning that there would be essentially two universes, one on either side of this central state,” Barbour says. “If they were complicated enough, both sides could sustain observers who would perceive time going in opposite directions. Any intelligent beings there would define their arrow of time as moving away from this central state. They would think we now live in their deepest past.”

What’s more, Barbour says, if gravitation does prove to be fundamental to the arrow of time, this could sooner or later generate testable predictions and potentially lead to a less “ad hoc” explanation than inflation for the history and structure of our observable universe.

This is not the first rigorous two-futures solution for time’s arrow. Most notably, California Institute of Technology cosmologist Sean Carroll and a graduate student, Jennifer Chen, produced their own branching model in 2004, one that sought to explain the low-entropy origin of time’s arrow in the context of cosmic inflation and the creation of baby universes. They attribute the arrow of time’s emergence in their model not so much to entropy being very low in the past but rather to entropy being so much higher in both futures, increased by the inflation-driven creation of baby universes.

A decade on, Carroll is just as bullish about the prospect that increasing entropy alone is the source for time’s arrow, rather than other influences such as gravity. “Everything that happens in the universe to distinguish the past from the future is ultimately because the entropy is lower in one direction and higher in the other,” Carroll says. “This paper by Barbour, Koslowski and Mercati is good because they roll up their sleeves and do the calculations for their specific model of particles interacting via gravity, but I don’t think it’s the model that is interesting—it’s the model’s behavior being analyzed carefully…. I think basically any time you have a finite collection of particles in a really big space you’ll get this kind of generic behavior they describe. The real question is, is our universe like that? That’s the hard part.”

Together with Alan Guth, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology cosmologist who pioneered the theory of inflation, Carroll is now working on a thermodynamic response of sorts to the new claims for a gravitational arrow of time: Another exceedingly simple particle-based model universe that also naturally gives rise to time’s arrow, but without the addition of gravity or any other forces. The thermodynamic secret to the model’s success, they say, is assuming that the universe has an unlimited capacity for entropy.

“If we assume there is no maximum possible entropy for the universe, then any state can be a state of low entropy,” Guth says. “That may sound dumb, but I think it really works, and I also think it’s the secret of the Barbour et al construction. If there’s no limit to how big the entropy can get, then you can start anywhere, and from that starting point you’d expect entropy to rise as the system moves to explore larger and larger regions of phase space. Eternal inflation is a natural context in which to invoke this idea, since it looks like the maximum possible entropy is unlimited in an eternally inflating universe.”

The controversy over time’s arrow has come far since the 19th-century ideas of Boltzmann and the 20th-century notions of Eddington, but in many ways, Barbour says, the debate at its core remains appropriately timeless. “This is opening up a completely new way to think about a fundamental problem, the nature of the arrow of time and the origin of the second law of thermodynamics,” Barbour says. “But really we’re just investigating a new aspect of Newton’s gravitation, which hadn’t been noticed before. Who knows what might flow from this with further work and elaboration?”

“Arthur Eddington coined the term ‘arrow of time,’ and famously said the shuffling of material and energy is the only thing which nature cannot undo,” Barbour adds. “And here we are, showing beyond any doubt really that this is in fact exactly what gravity does. It takes systems that look extraordinarily disordered and makes them wonderfully ordered. And this is what has happened in our universe. We are realizing the ancient Greek dream of order out of chaos.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

Did the Big Bang create a ‘mirror universe’ where time moves BACKWARDS? New theory could explain our past – and our future

  • Scientists have proposed a radical new theory of time for the universe
  • UK physicist Dr Julian Barbour and others say there are two arrows of time
  • These move in opposite directions and both formed at the Big Bang
  • This means at the Big Bang there were two universes that formed
  • Observers in either universe would view the other as moving backwards 

The inexorable tick of time moving forward is something that has puzzled scientists for more than a century.

But now a new theory has been proposed that may help answer some questions – at least with regards to the beginning of time and what happened in the ‘past’.

They say that at the moment of the Big Bang a ‘mirror universe’ to our own was created that moves in the opposite direction through time – and intelligent beings in each one would perceive the other to be moving backwards through time.

Since the Big Bang the universe has given rise to planets, stars and galaxies (illustration shown) as time ticks forward and matter clumps together. But a new theory suggests that at the same time a second universe is moving in the opposite direction, with a 'backwards' arrow of time to us

Since the Big Bang the universe has given rise to planets, stars and galaxies (illustration shown) as time ticks forward and matter clumps together. But a new theory suggests that at the same time a second universe is moving in the opposite direction, with a ‘backwards’ arrow of time to us

The radical theory was proposed by Dr Julian Barbour of College Farm in the UK, Dr Tim Koslowski of the University of New Brunswick in Canada and Dr Flavio Mercati of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, also in Canada.

Their research attempts to answer questions that remain about the ‘arrow of time’ – which is the concept that time is ‘symmetric’ and everything moves forwards.

They say that at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes formed – both moving equally in each direction through time, but opposite to each other.

‘Time is a mystery,’ Dr Barbour told MailOnline. ‘Basically, all the known laws of physics look exactly the same whichever way time runs, and in the world in which we live everything goes in one direction.

THE ARROW OF TIME

In 1927 British astronomer Arthur Eddington first devised the ‘one-way direction’ or ‘asymmetry ‘ of time.

He said that by studying the organisation of matter, it was possible to make a 4D map of the universe.

The so-called ‘arrow of time’ supposedly points to a move spread out and ‘random’ future, toward which everything is moving.

This is also known as entropy, which tends to increase with time.

Entropy, a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, will increase as energy dissipates and matter and energy disperse.

This means that entropy will always increase in the universe.

Some say this may lead to a ‘heat death’ future where everything is spread so thinly that nothing can exist any more – a scenario famously postulated in Isaac Asimov’s short story The Last Question.

However, owing to the law of gravity, some think such a future is not a possibility.

‘The universe is expanding, we get older, the order seems to grow – at least in our immediate vicinity.’

Dr Barbour gives the analogy of an ice cube melting in a glass of water as the universe moving from structure to disorder – known as entropy.

He says at the end of the 19th century this caused concern – as people thought the universe would end in a ‘heat death’ where the temperature in the universe was the same everywhere, just like the ice cube.

But when gravity is taken into account it seems the theory no longer holds true – and it may also explain a dramatic start for the universe.

Lee Billings, writing for Scientific American, said: ‘Thus, the sheer force of gravity sets the stage for the system’s expansion and the origin of time’s arrow.’

By assembling a simple model with 1,000 particles, the researchers say their theory shows that as you move backwards through time – to disorder – you eventually come out the other side after the Big Bang in order again – a ‘mirror’ universe.

The new research attempts to answer questions that remain about the ‘arrow of time’ – which is the concept that time is ‘symmetric’. They say that at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes formed – both moving equally in each direction through time, but opposite to each other, like two one way systems

The new research attempts to answer questions that remain about the ‘arrow of time’ – which is the concept that time is ‘symmetric’. They say that at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes formed – both moving equally in each direction through time, but opposite to each other, like two one way systems

While time moves forwards for us, intelligent beings in the 'mirror universe' would think that we are actually moving backwards. However, we would both have come from the same beginning - the Big Bang. It should also be noted that the universes are not identical, but simply time-symmetric

While time moves forwards for us, intelligent beings in the ‘mirror universe’ would think that we are actually moving backwards. However, we would both have come from the same beginning – the Big Bang. It should also be noted that the universes are not identical, but simply time-symmetric

This universe would not be exactly the same as ours, though; it would have evolved and changed in its own way, completely separate to our own.

However, it would be subject to the same laws of physics, so it would likely have planets, stars and galaxies just like in our version of the cosmos.

Explaining the model as a swarm of bees, Dr Barbour says that as time increases, the universe moves from an initial chaotic ‘swarm of bees’ to a more structured and ordered cosmos.

‘If you look at a simple model with a swarm of bees in the middle [the Big Bang] but breaking up in either direction, then you would say there are two arrows of time, pointing in opposite directions from the swarm of bees,’ he said.

‘One arrow would be forwards, and one backwards.

‘If you define time as the direction in which order is increasing, you always get two arrows in opposite direction from the central chaotic region.’

He continued that it is opening up a new way to think about the Big Bang.

‘At the moment when people talk about the Big Bang, they more or less throw their hands up in despair and say they can’t say what happened.

‘Now our work is beginning to suggest we can actually say more than people thought.’

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2868238/Did-Big-Bang-create-mirror-universe-time-moves-BACKWARDS-New-theory-explain-past-future.html

Did the Big Bang create a ‘mirror universe’ where time moves BACKWARDS? New theory could explain our past – and our future

  • Scientists have proposed a radical new theory of time for the universe
  • UK physicist Dr Julian Barbour and others say there are two arrows of time
  • These move in opposite directions and both formed at the Big Bang
  • This means at the Big Bang there were two universes that formed
  • Observers in either universe would view the other as moving backwards 

The inexorable tick of time moving forward is something that has puzzled scientists for more than a century.

But now a new theory has been proposed that may help answer some questions – at least with regards to the beginning of time and what happened in the ‘past’.

They say that at the moment of the Big Bang a ‘mirror universe’ to our own was created that moves in the opposite direction through time – and intelligent beings in each one would perceive the other to be moving backwards through time.

Since the Big Bang the universe has given rise to planets, stars and galaxies (illustration shown) as time ticks forward and matter clumps together. But a new theory suggests that at the same time a second universe is moving in the opposite direction, with a 'backwards' arrow of time to us

Since the Big Bang the universe has given rise to planets, stars and galaxies (illustration shown) as time ticks forward and matter clumps together. But a new theory suggests that at the same time a second universe is moving in the opposite direction, with a ‘backwards’ arrow of time to us

The radical theory was proposed by Dr Julian Barbour of College Farm in the UK, Dr Tim Koslowski of the University of New Brunswick in Canada and Dr Flavio Mercati of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, also in Canada.

Their research attempts to answer questions that remain about the ‘arrow of time’ – which is the concept that time is ‘symmetric’ and everything moves forwards.

They say that at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes formed – both moving equally in each direction through time, but opposite to each other.

‘Time is a mystery,’ Dr Barbour told MailOnline. ‘Basically, all the known laws of physics look exactly the same whichever way time runs, and in the world in which we live everything goes in one direction.

THE ARROW OF TIME

In 1927 British astronomer Arthur Eddington first devised the ‘one-way direction’ or ‘asymmetry ‘ of time.

He said that by studying the organisation of matter, it was possible to make a 4D map of the universe.

The so-called ‘arrow of time’ supposedly points to a move spread out and ‘random’ future, toward which everything is moving.

This is also known as entropy, which tends to increase with time.

Entropy, a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, will increase as energy dissipates and matter and energy disperse.

This means that entropy will always increase in the universe.

Some say this may lead to a ‘heat death’ future where everything is spread so thinly that nothing can exist any more – a scenario famously postulated in Isaac Asimov’s short story The Last Question.

However, owing to the law of gravity, some think such a future is not a possibility.

‘The universe is expanding, we get older, the order seems to grow – at least in our immediate vicinity.’

Dr Barbour gives the analogy of an ice cube melting in a glass of water as the universe moving from structure to disorder – known as entropy.

He says at the end of the 19th century this caused concern – as people thought the universe would end in a ‘heat death’ where the temperature in the universe was the same everywhere, just like the ice cube.

But when gravity is taken into account it seems the theory no longer holds true – and it may also explain a dramatic start for the universe.

Lee Billings, writing for Scientific American, said: ‘Thus, the sheer force of gravity sets the stage for the system’s expansion and the origin of time’s arrow.’

By assembling a simple model with 1,000 particles, the researchers say their theory shows that as you move backwards through time – to disorder – you eventually come out the other side after the Big Bang in order again – a ‘mirror’ universe.

The new research attempts to answer questions that remain about the ‘arrow of time’ – which is the concept that time is ‘symmetric’. They say that at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes formed – both moving equally in each direction through time, but opposite to each other, like two one way systems

The new research attempts to answer questions that remain about the ‘arrow of time’ – which is the concept that time is ‘symmetric’. They say that at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes formed – both moving equally in each direction through time, but opposite to each other, like two one way systems

While time moves forwards for us, intelligent beings in the 'mirror universe' would think that we are actually moving backwards. However, we would both have come from the same beginning - the Big Bang. It should also be noted that the universes are not identical, but simply time-symmetric

While time moves forwards for us, intelligent beings in the ‘mirror universe’ would think that we are actually moving backwards. However, we would both have come from the same beginning – the Big Bang. It should also be noted that the universes are not identical, but simply time-symmetric

This universe would not be exactly the same as ours, though; it would have evolved and changed in its own way, completely separate to our own.

However, it would be subject to the same laws of physics, so it would likely have planets, stars and galaxies just like in our version of the cosmos.

Explaining the model as a swarm of bees, Dr Barbour says that as time increases, the universe moves from an initial chaotic ‘swarm of bees’ to a more structured and ordered cosmos.

‘If you look at a simple model with a swarm of bees in the middle [the Big Bang] but breaking up in either direction, then you would say there are two arrows of time, pointing in opposite directions from the swarm of bees,’ he said.

‘One arrow would be forwards, and one backwards.

‘If you define time as the direction in which order is increasing, you always get two arrows in opposite direction from the central chaotic region.’

He continued that it is opening up a new way to think about the Big Bang.

‘At the moment when people talk about the Big Bang, they more or less throw their hands up in despair and say they can’t say what happened.

‘Now our work is beginning to suggest we can actually say more than people thought.’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html

Did the Big Bang create a parallel universe where time goes backwards?

Radical new research suggests that at the same time the Big Bang created our universe, another where time goes in the opposite direction was also born

A scientific breakthrough could redefine how the universe is understood.

Radical new research led by a British scientist has suggested that there may be a second universe where time runs backwards.

The theoretical claims put forward in the Physical Review Lettersjournal could revolutionise the field of research into the origin and future of the universe.

In the paper titled ‘Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time’, an international team of world renowned scientists led by Oxfordshire-based Dr Julian Barbour challenge assumptions about the so called ‘arrow of time’.

The ‘arrow of time’ is the theory that time is symmetric and therefore time moves forward. They contend that there is no scientific reason that a mirror universe could not have been created where time moved in an distinct way from our own.

But in a quirk of science it is thought that if a parallel universe did exist where time moved backward, any sentient beings there would consider that time in our universe in fact moved backward.

The arrow of time is also known as the ‘one-way’ direction of time and was devised by a British scientist, Dr Arthur Eddington, in the twenties.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/tmgads/tools/ooyala/iframeplayer.html?platform=desktop&width=460&height=258&size=460×258&vidEmbed=p4ZHQ4bDodmE2exv-AYlyRtOlAPbrj0f&adTag=http%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fsz%3D620x415%26iu%3D%2F6582%2Ftmg.telegraph.news%2Fnews.science.sciencenews%26ciu_szs%26impl%3Ds%26gdfp_req%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26output%3Dxml_vast3%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Fnews%252Fscience%252Fscience-news%252F11285605%252FDid-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html%26cust_params%3Dver%253D1.59%2526sc%253Dnews-science-sciencenews%2526pt%253Dstory%2526lvl%253D4%2526biw%253D1096%2526bih%253D825%2526lang%253Den-us%2526fv%253D11%2526rd%253Dwww.telegraph.co.uk%2526platform%253Ddesktop%2526kw%253Dnull%2526make%253Dnull%2526model%253Dnull%2526geo%253Dus%2526ec%253Dnull%2526mv%253Dnull%2526ms%253Dnull%2526vidsrc%253Dtmg%2526pg%253D11285605%2526gs%253Dedu_students%2526resp%253Dlg%2526kxuid%253Dnull%2526vidsrc%253Dtmg%2526vt%253Dembed%2526dcmt%253Dtext%252Fxml%2526at%253Dvid%2526pos%253D3%26correlator%3D1427182869415&relatedVideo=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.api.ooyala.com%2Fv2%2Fassets%3Fwhere%3Dembed_code%2Bin%2B%2528%25271ram1kYTptGlB4TrXD44qPouP3bJsKte%2527%252C%25271oYzA2bDoCQeVCE6jgsLbGALk1Qt31M5%2527%252C%2527RydHd3azp30XIlPdud2k3VlZ4uhCR2cH%2527%252C%2527c5NXU1bDp2KMHVWIu11H4qHotNedIVlw%2527%2529%26api_key%3DRvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2.WFFAb%26expires%3D1640995199%26signature%3DMj8%252FJz8%252FPz8%252FPyFufHY9P1ATPzxxP2QCPz8%252FExFIa24

VIDEO: Proof of the Big BangDr Barbour told the MailOnline that the mirror universe was a possibility because all of the laws of physics apply no matter which way time is moving and therefore there is no scientific impediment to such a parallel universe.

He said: “Time is a mystery. Basically, all the known laws of physics look exactly the same whichever way time runs, and in the world in which we live in everything goes in one direction.”

“If you look at a simple model with a swarm of bees in the middle of the Big Bang but breaking up in either direction, then you would say there are two arrows of time, pointing in opposite direction from the swarm. One arrow would be forwards and one backwards.”

However Dr Barbour acknowledges that locating the ‘other’ universe in practical terms is an altogether different question.

“Our results are a proof of principle,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html

Did the Big Bang create a parallel universe where time goes backwards?

Radical new research suggests that at the same time the Big Bang created our universe, another where time goes in the opposite direction was also born

A scientific breakthrough could redefine how the universe is understood.

Radical new research led by a British scientist has suggested that there may be a second universe where time runs backwards.

The theoretical claims put forward in the Physical Review Lettersjournal could revolutionise the field of research into the origin and future of the universe.

In the paper titled ‘Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time’, an international team of world renowned scientists led by Oxfordshire-based Dr Julian Barbour challenge assumptions about the so called ‘arrow of time’.

The ‘arrow of time’ is the theory that time is symmetric and therefore time moves forward. They contend that there is no scientific reason that a mirror universe could not have been created where time moved in an distinct way from our own.

But in a quirk of science it is thought that if a parallel universe did exist where time moved backward, any sentient beings there would consider that time in our universe in fact moved backward.

The arrow of time is also known as the ‘one-way’ direction of time and was devised by a British scientist, Dr Arthur Eddington, in the twenties.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/tmgads/tools/ooyala/iframeplayer.html?platform=desktop&width=460&height=258&size=460×258&vidEmbed=p4ZHQ4bDodmE2exv-AYlyRtOlAPbrj0f&adTag=http%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fsz%3D620x415%26iu%3D%2F6582%2Ftmg.telegraph.news%2Fnews.science.sciencenews%26ciu_szs%26impl%3Ds%26gdfp_req%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26output%3Dxml_vast3%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Fnews%252Fscience%252Fscience-news%252F11285605%252FDid-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html%26cust_params%3Dver%253D1.59%2526sc%253Dnews-science-sciencenews%2526pt%253Dstory%2526lvl%253D4%2526biw%253D1096%2526bih%253D825%2526lang%253Den-us%2526fv%253D11%2526rd%253Dwww.telegraph.co.uk%2526platform%253Ddesktop%2526kw%253Dnull%2526make%253Dnull%2526model%253Dnull%2526geo%253Dus%2526ec%253Dnull%2526mv%253Dnull%2526ms%253Dnull%2526vidsrc%253Dtmg%2526pg%253D11285605%2526gs%253Dedu_students%2526resp%253Dlg%2526kxuid%253Dnull%2526vidsrc%253Dtmg%2526vt%253Dembed%2526dcmt%253Dtext%252Fxml%2526at%253Dvid%2526pos%253D3%26correlator%3D1427183109091&relatedVideo=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.api.ooyala.com%2Fv2%2Fassets%3Fwhere%3Dembed_code%2Bin%2B%2528%25271ram1kYTptGlB4TrXD44qPouP3bJsKte%2527%252C%25271oYzA2bDoCQeVCE6jgsLbGALk1Qt31M5%2527%252C%2527RydHd3azp30XIlPdud2k3VlZ4uhCR2cH%2527%252C%2527c5NXU1bDp2KMHVWIu11H4qHotNedIVlw%2527%2529%26api_key%3DRvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2.WFFAb%26expires%3D1640995199%26signature%3DMj8%252FJz8%252FPz8%252FPyFufHY9P1ATPzxxP2QCPz8%252FExFIa24

VIDEO: Proof of the Big BangDr Barbour told the MailOnline that the mirror universe was a possibility because all of the laws of physics apply no matter which way time is moving and therefore there is no scientific impediment to such a parallel universe.

He said: “Time is a mystery. Basically, all the known laws of physics look exactly the same whichever way time runs, and in the world in which we live in everything goes in one direction.”

“If you look at a simple model with a swarm of bees in the middle of the Big Bang but breaking up in either direction, then you would say there are two arrows of time, pointing in opposite direction from the swarm. One arrow would be forwards and one backwards.”

However Dr Barbour acknowledges that locating the ‘other’ universe in practical terms is an altogether different question.

“Our results are a proof of principle,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider

Scientists at Cern could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely, with no Big Bang

The theory of Rainbow Gravity may prove that the Big Bang could not have happened

The theory of Rainbow Gravity may prove that the Big Bang could not have happened Photo: Alamy

The detection of miniature black holes by the Large Hadron Collider could prove the existence of parallel universes and show that the Big Bang did not happen, scientists believe.

The particle accelerator, which will be restarted this week, has already found the Higgs boson – the God Particle – which is thought to give mass to other particles.

Now scientists at Cern in Switzerland believe they might find miniature black holes which would reveal the existence of a parallel universe.

And if the holes are found at a certain energy, it could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started, and no Big Bang.

The theory was postulated to reconcile Einstein’s theory of general relativity – which deals with very large objects, and quantum mechanics – which looks at the tiniest building blocks of the universe. It takes its name from a suggestion that gravity’s effect on the cosmos is felt differently by varying wavelengths of light.

The huge amounts of energy needed to make ‘rainbow gravity’ would mean that the early universe was very different. One result would be that if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it.

The effect of rainbow gravity is small for objects like the Earth but it is significant and measurable for black holes. It could be detected by the Large Hadron Collider if it picks up or creates black holes within the accelerator.

“We have calculated the energy at which we expect to detect these mini black holes in gravity’s rainbow [a new theory]. If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity’s rainbow and extra dimensions are correct, Dr Mir Faizal told Phys.org.

Did the Big Bang create a parallel universe where time goes backwards?
Large Hadron Collider to launch again in dark matter quest
The sound of science: Higgs boson data turned into music at CERN
Pictures reveal bigger and better Large Hadron Collider

The second run of the LHC will begin this week and the beams are expected to go full circle on Wednesday for the first time since the 27km accelerator was shut down in early 2013 for an upgrade.

When it is fired up it will smash protons together at nearly double the energy that was used to find the Higgs boson.

Rolf Heuer, Director General of CERN, said the switch-on would create ‘a new era for physics’ which could also shed light on dark matter, dark energy and super-symmetry.

“I want to see the first light in the dark universe. If that happens, then nature is kind to me.”

Scientists believe they could find the first proof of alternative realities that exist outside out own universe.

The newly revamped Large Hadron Collider

It is even possible that gravity from our own universe may ‘leak’ into this parallel universe, scientists at the LHC say.

“Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions,” added Dr Faizal,

“We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC.

“Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualised.

“This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.

“This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions.

“As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC.”

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has undergone important upgrades and repairs over the past two years since the first shutdown.

The particle collider boasts new magnets, superior cryogenics, higher voltage and higher energy beams that will allow the machine to run at nearly double the collision energy of the first run.

The first circulating beams of protons in the LHC are planned for the week beginning 23 March, and by late May to early June the LHC aims to be running at 13 TeV.

Frances Saunders, president of the IOP, said, “This has been a massive effort by all the scientists and engineers at CERN to upgrade the LHC and its detectors and get it ready to operate at almost double the collision energies of the first run.

“As well as allowing greater study of the Higgs boson there is much anticipation amongst the physics community as to what else may be found at these higher energies, testing our theories and understanding of concepts such as supersymmetry and potentially giving greater insight into the 95 per cent of the universe that is composed of dark matter and dark energy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider

Scientists at Cern could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely, with no Big Bang

The theory of Rainbow Gravity may prove that the Big Bang could not have happened

The theory of Rainbow Gravity may prove that the Big Bang could not have happened Photo: Alamy

The detection of miniature black holes by the Large Hadron Collider could prove the existence of parallel universes and show that the Big Bang did not happen, scientists believe.

The particle accelerator, which will be restarted this week, has already found the Higgs boson – the God Particle – which is thought to give mass to other particles.

Now scientists at Cern in Switzerland believe they might find miniature black holes which would reveal the existence of a parallel universe.

And if the holes are found at a certain energy, it could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started, and no Big Bang.

The theory was postulated to reconcile Einstein’s theory of general relativity – which deals with very large objects, and quantum mechanics – which looks at the tiniest building blocks of the universe. It takes its name from a suggestion that gravity’s effect on the cosmos is felt differently by varying wavelengths of light.

The huge amounts of energy needed to make ‘rainbow gravity’ would mean that the early universe was very different. One result would be that if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it.

The effect of rainbow gravity is small for objects like the Earth but it is significant and measurable for black holes. It could be detected by the Large Hadron Collider if it picks up or creates black holes within the accelerator.

“We have calculated the energy at which we expect to detect these mini black holes in gravity’s rainbow [a new theory]. If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity’s rainbow and extra dimensions are correct, Dr Mir Faizal told Phys.org.

Did the Big Bang create a parallel universe where time goes backwards?
Large Hadron Collider to launch again in dark matter quest
The sound of science: Higgs boson data turned into music at CERN
Pictures reveal bigger and better Large Hadron Collider

The second run of the LHC will begin this week and the beams are expected to go full circle on Wednesday for the first time since the 27km accelerator was shut down in early 2013 for an upgrade.

When it is fired up it will smash protons together at nearly double the energy that was used to find the Higgs boson.

Rolf Heuer, Director General of CERN, said the switch-on would create ‘a new era for physics’ which could also shed light on dark matter, dark energy and super-symmetry.

“I want to see the first light in the dark universe. If that happens, then nature is kind to me.”

Scientists believe they could find the first proof of alternative realities that exist outside out own universe.

The newly revamped Large Hadron Collider

It is even possible that gravity from our own universe may ‘leak’ into this parallel universe, scientists at the LHC say.

“Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions,” added Dr Faizal,

“We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC.

“Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualised.

“This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.

“This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions.

“As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC.”

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has undergone important upgrades and repairs over the past two years since the first shutdown.

The particle collider boasts new magnets, superior cryogenics, higher voltage and higher energy beams that will allow the machine to run at nearly double the collision energy of the first run.

The first circulating beams of protons in the LHC are planned for the week beginning 23 March, and by late May to early June the LHC aims to be running at 13 TeV.

Frances Saunders, president of the IOP, said, “This has been a massive effort by all the scientists and engineers at CERN to upgrade the LHC and its detectors and get it ready to operate at almost double the collision energies of the first run.

“As well as allowing greater study of the Higgs boson there is much anticipation amongst the physics community as to what else may be found at these higher energies, testing our theories and understanding of concepts such as supersymmetry and potentially giving greater insight into the 95 per cent of the universe that is composed of dark matter and dark energy.”

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html#ajTabs

Universe may be on the brink of collapse (on the cosmological timescale)

18 hours ago by Lisa Zyga feature
universe
This is the “South Pillar” region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope “busted open” this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA
(Phys.org)—Physicists have proposed a mechanism for “cosmological collapse” that predicts that the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse in on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it. Their calculations suggest that the collapse is “imminent”—on the order of a few tens of billions of years or so—which may not keep most people up at night, but for the physicists it’s still much too soon.

In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Nemanja Kaloper at the University of California, Davis; and Antonio Padilla at the University of Nottingham have proposed the cosmological mechanism and analyzed its implications, which include an explanation of dark energy.

“The fact that we are seeing dark energy now could be taken as an indication of impending doom, and we are trying to look at the data to put some figures on the end date,” Padilla told Phys.org. “Early indications suggest the collapse will kick in in a few tens of billions of years, but we have yet to properly verify this.”

The main point of the paper is not so much when exactly the universe will end, but that the mechanism may help resolve some of the unanswered questions in physics. In particular, why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate, and what is the causing this acceleration? These questions are related to the cosmological constant problem, which is that the predicted density of the universe causing the expansion is much larger than what is observed.

“I think we have opened up a brand new approach to what some have described as ‘the mother of all physics problems,’ namely the cosmological constant problem,” Padilla said. “It’s way too early to say if it will stand the test of time, but so far it has stood up to scrutiny, and it does seem to address the issue of vacuum energy contributions from the standard model, and how they gravitate.”

The collapse mechanism builds on the physicists’ previous research on vacuum energy sequestering, which they proposed to address the problem. The dynamics of vacuum energy sequestering predict that the universe will collapse, but don’t provide a specific mechanism for how collapse will occur.

According to the new mechanism, the universe originated under a set of specific initial conditions so that it naturally evolved to its present state of acceleration and will continue on a path toward collapse. In this scenario, once the collapse trigger begins to dominate, it does so in a period of “slow roll” that brings about the we see today. Eventually the universe will stop expanding and reach a turnaround point at which it begins to shrink, culminating in a “big crunch.”

Currently, we are in the period of accelerated expansion, and we know that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. So in order for the new mechanism to work, the period of accelerated expansion must last until at least this time (needless to say, a mechanism that predicts that the universe has already collapsed is obviously flawed). The collapse time can be delayed by choosing an appropriate slope, which in this case, is a slope that has a very tiny positive value—about 10-39 in the scientists’ equation. The very gradual slope means that the universe evolves very slowly.

Importantly, the scientists did not choose a slope just to fit the observed expansion and support their mechanism. Instead, they explain that the slope is “technically natural,” and takes on this value due to a symmetry in the theory.

As the physicists explain, the naturalness of the mechanism makes it one of the first ever models that predicts acceleration without any direct fine-tuning. In the mechanism, the slope alone controls the ‘s evolution, including the scale of the accelerated expansion.

“The ‘technically natural’ size of the slope controls when the collapse trigger begins to dominate, but was it guaranteed to give us slow roll and therefore the accelerated expansion?” Padilla said. “Naively one might have expected to have to fine-tune some initial conditions to guarantee this, but remarkably that is not the case. The dynamics of vacuum energy sequestering guarantee the slow roll.”

The idea is still in its early stages, and the physicists hope to build on it much more in the future.

“There is much to do,” Padilla said. “Right now we are working on a way to describe our theory in a way that is manifestly local, which will make it more conventional, and more obviously in keeping with some of the key principles behind quantum theory (namely, linear superposition). We would also like to devise more tests of the idea, both cosmological and astrophysical.

“Over the longer term, we would like to understand how our theory could emerge from a more fundamental theory, such as string theory. It is also important to ask what happens when we consider vacuum energy corrections from quantum gravity.”

If there was ever a justification that more work is needed, it may be in the paper’s conclusion:

“The present epoch of acceleration may be evidence of impending doom. . . A detailed analysis to better quantify these predictions is certainly warranted.”

Dr Tony Padilla on some recent work he has been doing. See the papers (not the faint-hearted) here: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1309.6562 AND http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.0711

Explore further: Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang, say researchers

More information: Nemanja Kaloper and Antonio Padilla. “Sequestration of Vacuum Energy and the End of the Universe.” Physical Review Letters. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.101302

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters search and more info

Universe may be on the brink of collapse (on the cosmological timescale)

18 hours ago by Lisa Zyga feature
universe
This is the “South Pillar” region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope “busted open” this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA
(Phys.org)—Physicists have proposed a mechanism for “cosmological collapse” that predicts that the universe will soon stop expanding and collapse in on itself, obliterating all matter as we know it. Their calculations suggest that the collapse is “imminent”—on the order of a few tens of billions of years or so—which may not keep most people up at night, but for the physicists it’s still much too soon.

In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Nemanja Kaloper at the University of California, Davis; and Antonio Padilla at the University of Nottingham have proposed the cosmological mechanism and analyzed its implications, which include an explanation of dark energy.

“The fact that we are seeing dark energy now could be taken as an indication of impending doom, and we are trying to look at the data to put some figures on the end date,” Padilla told Phys.org. “Early indications suggest the collapse will kick in in a few tens of billions of years, but we have yet to properly verify this.”

The main point of the paper is not so much when exactly the universe will end, but that the mechanism may help resolve some of the unanswered questions in physics. In particular, why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate, and what is the causing this acceleration? These questions are related to the cosmological constant problem, which is that the predicted density of the universe causing the expansion is much larger than what is observed.

“I think we have opened up a brand new approach to what some have described as ‘the mother of all physics problems,’ namely the cosmological constant problem,” Padilla said. “It’s way too early to say if it will stand the test of time, but so far it has stood up to scrutiny, and it does seem to address the issue of vacuum energy contributions from the standard model, and how they gravitate.”

The collapse mechanism builds on the physicists’ previous research on vacuum energy sequestering, which they proposed to address the problem. The dynamics of vacuum energy sequestering predict that the universe will collapse, but don’t provide a specific mechanism for how collapse will occur.

According to the new mechanism, the universe originated under a set of specific initial conditions so that it naturally evolved to its present state of acceleration and will continue on a path toward collapse. In this scenario, once the collapse trigger begins to dominate, it does so in a period of “slow roll” that brings about the we see today. Eventually the universe will stop expanding and reach a turnaround point at which it begins to shrink, culminating in a “big crunch.”

Currently, we are in the period of accelerated expansion, and we know that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. So in order for the new mechanism to work, the period of accelerated expansion must last until at least this time (needless to say, a mechanism that predicts that the universe has already collapsed is obviously flawed). The collapse time can be delayed by choosing an appropriate slope, which in this case, is a slope that has a very tiny positive value—about 10-39 in the scientists’ equation. The very gradual slope means that the universe evolves very slowly.

Importantly, the scientists did not choose a slope just to fit the observed expansion and support their mechanism. Instead, they explain that the slope is “technically natural,” and takes on this value due to a symmetry in the theory.

As the physicists explain, the naturalness of the mechanism makes it one of the first ever models that predicts acceleration without any direct fine-tuning. In the mechanism, the slope alone controls the ‘s evolution, including the scale of the accelerated expansion.

“The ‘technically natural’ size of the slope controls when the collapse trigger begins to dominate, but was it guaranteed to give us slow roll and therefore the accelerated expansion?” Padilla said. “Naively one might have expected to have to fine-tune some initial conditions to guarantee this, but remarkably that is not the case. The dynamics of vacuum energy sequestering guarantee the slow roll.”

The idea is still in its early stages, and the physicists hope to build on it much more in the future.

“There is much to do,” Padilla said. “Right now we are working on a way to describe our theory in a way that is manifestly local, which will make it more conventional, and more obviously in keeping with some of the key principles behind quantum theory (namely, linear superposition). We would also like to devise more tests of the idea, both cosmological and astrophysical.

“Over the longer term, we would like to understand how our theory could emerge from a more fundamental theory, such as string theory. It is also important to ask what happens when we consider vacuum energy corrections from quantum gravity.”

If there was ever a justification that more work is needed, it may be in the paper’s conclusion:

“The present epoch of acceleration may be evidence of impending doom. . . A detailed analysis to better quantify these predictions is certainly warranted.”

Dr Tony Padilla on some recent work he has been doing. See the papers (not the faint-hearted) here: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1309.6562 AND http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.0711

Explore further: Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang, say researchers

More information: Nemanja Kaloper and Antonio Padilla. “Sequestration of Vacuum Energy and the End of the Universe.” Physical Review Letters. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.101302

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters search and more info

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-gravity-universe-big.html#inlRlv

Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang, say researchers

Nov 18, 2014
Big Bang
Time Line of the Universe. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team
(Phys.org) —New research by a team of European physicists could explain why the universe did not collapse immediately after the Big Bang.

Studies of the Higgs particle – discovered at CERN in 2012 and responsible for giving mass to all – have suggested that the production of Higgs particles during the accelerating expansion of the very early universe (inflation) should have led to instability and collapse.

Scientists have been trying to find out why this didn’t happen, leading to theories that there must be some that will help explain the origins of the universe that has not yet been discovered. Physicists from Imperial College London, and the Universities of Copenhagen and Helsinki, however, believe there is a simpler explanation.

In a new study in Physical Review Letters, the team describe how the spacetime curvature – in effect, gravity – provided the stability needed for the universe to survive expansion in that early period. The team investigated the interaction between the Higgs particles and gravity, taking into account how it would vary with energy.

They show that even a small interaction would have been enough to stabilise the universe against decay.

“The Standard Model of particle physics, which scientists use to explain elementary particles and their interactions, has so far not provided an answer to why the universe did not collapse following the Big Bang,” explains Professor Arttu Rajantie, from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London.

“Our research investigates the last unknown parameter in the Standard Model – the interaction between the Higgs particle and gravity. This parameter cannot be measured in particle accelerator experiments, but it has a big effect on the Higgs instability during inflation. Even a relatively small value is enough to explain the survival of the universe without any new physics!”

The team plan to continue their research using cosmological observations to look at this interaction in more detail and explain what effect it would have had on the development of the early . In particular, they will use data from current and future European Space Agency missions measuring cosmic microwave background radiation and gravitational waves.

“Our aim is to measure the interaction between gravity and the Higgs field using cosmological data,” says Professor Rajantie. “If we are able to do that, we will have supplied the last unknown number in the Standard Model of and be closer to answering fundamental questions about how we are all here.”

Explore further: Maybe it wasn’t the Higgs particle after all

More information: ‘Spacetime curvature and the Higgs stability during inflation’,Physical Review Letters, published online 17 November 2014.journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/… ysRevLett.113.211102 . On Arxiv:arxiv.org/abs/1407.3141

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters search and more info

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-gravity-universe-big.html#inlRlv

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html#inlRlv

Maybe it wasn’t the Higgs particle after all

Nov 07, 2014
Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all
Associate Professor Mads Toudal Frandsen, University of Southern Denmark Credit: University of Southern Denmark
Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn’t the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Many calculations indicate that the particle discovered last year in the CERN particle accelerator was indeed the famous Higgs particle. Physicists agree that the CERN experiments did find a new particle that had never been seen before, but according to an international research team, there is no conclusive evidence that the particle was indeed the Higgs particle.

The research team has scrutinized the existing scientific data from CERN about the newfound particle and published their analysis in the journal Physical Review D. A member of this team is Mads Toudal Frandsen, associate professor at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Southern Denmark.

“The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particle is the Higgs particle. It is true that the Higgs particle can explain the data but there can be other explanations, we would also get this data from other “, Mads Toudal Frandsen explains.

The researchers’ analysis does not debunk the possibility that CERN has discovered the Higgs particle. That is still possible – but it is equally possible that it is a different kind of particle.

“The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is. It could be a number of other known particles”, says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

But if it wasn’t the Higgs particle, that was found in CERN’s particle accelerator, then what was it?

“We believe that it may be a so-called techni-. This particle is in some ways similar to the Higgs particle – hence half of the name”, says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

Although the techni-higgs particle and Higgs particle can easily be confused in experiments, they are two very different particles belonging to two very different theories of how the universe was created.

The Higgs particle is the missing piece in the theory called the Standard Model. This theory describes three of the four forces of nature. But it does not explain what dark matter is – the substance that makes up most of the universe. A techni-higgs particle, if it exists, is a completely different thing:

“A techni-higgs particle is not an elementary particle. Instead, it consists of so-called techni-quarks, which we believe are elementary. Techni-quarks may bind together in various ways to form for instance techni-higgs particles, while other combinations may form dark matter. We therefore expect to find several different particles at the LHC, all built by techni-quarks”, says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

If techni-quarks exist, there must be a force to bind them together so that they can form particles. None of the four known forces of nature (gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force) are any good at binding techni-quarks together. There must therefore be a yet undiscovered force of nature. This force is called the the technicolor .

What was found last year in CERN’s accelerator could thus be either the Higgs particle of the Standard Model or a light techni-higgs particle, composed of two techni-quarks.

Mads Toudal Frandsen believes that more data from CERN will probably be able to determine if it was a Higgs or a techni-higgs particle. If CERN gets an even more powerful accelerator, it will in principle be able to observe techni-quarks directly.

Explore further: Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions

More information: Technicolor Higgs boson in the light of LHC data. Phys. Rev. D 90, 035012th Alexander Belyaev, Matthew S. Brown, Roshan Foadi, and Mads T. Frandsen. journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/… 3/PhysRevD.90.035012 . On Arxiv:arxiv.org/abs/1309.2097

Maybe it wasn’t the Higgs particle after all

Nov 07, 2014
Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all
Associate Professor Mads Toudal Frandsen, University of Southern Denmark Credit: University of Southern Denmark
Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn’t the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Many calculations indicate that the particle discovered last year in the CERN particle accelerator was indeed the famous Higgs particle. Physicists agree that the CERN experiments did find a new particle that had never been seen before, but according to an international research team, there is no conclusive evidence that the particle was indeed the Higgs particle.

The research team has scrutinized the existing scientific data from CERN about the newfound particle and published their analysis in the journal Physical Review D. A member of this team is Mads Toudal Frandsen, associate professor at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Southern Denmark.

“The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particle is the Higgs particle. It is true that the Higgs particle can explain the data but there can be other explanations, we would also get this data from other “, Mads Toudal Frandsen explains.

The researchers’ analysis does not debunk the possibility that CERN has discovered the Higgs particle. That is still possible – but it is equally possible that it is a different kind of particle.

“The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is. It could be a number of other known particles”, says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

But if it wasn’t the Higgs particle, that was found in CERN’s particle accelerator, then what was it?

“We believe that it may be a so-called techni-. This particle is in some ways similar to the Higgs particle – hence half of the name”, says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

Although the techni-higgs particle and Higgs particle can easily be confused in experiments, they are two very different particles belonging to two very different theories of how the universe was created.

The Higgs particle is the missing piece in the theory called the Standard Model. This theory describes three of the four forces of nature. But it does not explain what dark matter is – the substance that makes up most of the universe. A techni-higgs particle, if it exists, is a completely different thing:

“A techni-higgs particle is not an elementary particle. Instead, it consists of so-called techni-quarks, which we believe are elementary. Techni-quarks may bind together in various ways to form for instance techni-higgs particles, while other combinations may form dark matter. We therefore expect to find several different particles at the LHC, all built by techni-quarks”, says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

If techni-quarks exist, there must be a force to bind them together so that they can form particles. None of the four known forces of nature (gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force) are any good at binding techni-quarks together. There must therefore be a yet undiscovered force of nature. This force is called the the technicolor .

What was found last year in CERN’s accelerator could thus be either the Higgs particle of the Standard Model or a light techni-higgs particle, composed of two techni-quarks.

Mads Toudal Frandsen believes that more data from CERN will probably be able to determine if it was a Higgs or a techni-higgs particle. If CERN gets an even more powerful accelerator, it will in principle be able to observe techni-quarks directly.

Explore further: Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions

More information: Technicolor Higgs boson in the light of LHC data. Phys. Rev. D 90, 035012th Alexander Belyaev, Matthew S. Brown, Roshan Foadi, and Mads T. Frandsen. journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/… 3/PhysRevD.90.035012 . On Arxiv:arxiv.org/abs/1309.2097

Journal reference: Physical Review D search and more info

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-particles-smaller-higgs-particle.html#nRlv

Now it is more likely than ever: There must be particles out there smaller than Higgs particle

Mar 21, 2014
Nobody has seen them yet; particles that are smaller than the Higgs particle. However theories predict their existence, and now the most important of these theories have been critically tested. The result: The existence of the yet unseen particles is now more likely than ever.

“I gave them a very critical review”, says Thomas Ryttov, particle physicist and associate professor at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP ³ – Origins), University of Southern Denmark.

He refers to the theories, that over the last app. five years have been put forward for the existence of in the universe that are smaller than the Higgs particle. Having given these theories a critical review, he finds no new signs of weakness in them:

“There seems to be no new or unseen weaknessess. My review just leaves them just stronger”, he says.

Over the past 5-8 years, a handful of theories have drawn particular interest from. They all predict that there must be one or more types of particles that are even smaller than the Higgs particle. So far it has however not been possible to prove their existence.

“Here at CP ³ – Origins, we are interested in the pursuit of such as yet unknown particles. We know that there must be a force that binds them together so that they together can create something bigger than themselves, something composite; a Higgs particle. It must happen similarly to quarks binding together to form protons and neutrons. If we can understand this force, we can explain and predict new physical phenomena like new particles”, explains Thomas Ryttov.

This force is called the . It cannot be compared to gravity, which also has the ability to keep two objects close together. The effect of gravity depends on the fact that the two objects are not too far from each other, and the closer they are to each other the stronger the force of gravity will be. The strong force has the opposite effect: It is weak when two particles are close to each other, but strong – extremely strong – if you try to pull them apart.

Thomas Ryttov and his colleagues at CP ³ – Origins believe that the so-called techni-quarks can be the yet unseen particles, smaller than the Higgs particle. If techni-quarks exist they will form a natural exention of the Standard Model which includes three generations of quarks and leptons. These particles together with the fundamental forces form the basis of the observed matter in the universe.

Explore further: Study of interaction among three objects in peculiar resonant systems uncovers an unexpected universality

More information: Infrared fixed points in the minimal momentum subtraction scheme,Phys. Rev. D 89, 056001, 5 March 2014.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-collapse-universe-closer.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-interaction-peculiar-resonant-uncovers-unexpected.html#inlRlv

Study of interaction among three objects in peculiar resonant systems uncovers an unexpected universality

Mar 20, 2015
Study of the interaction among three objects in peculiar resonant systems uncovers an unexpected universality
Efimov states of neighboring energy always differ by the same scale factor of 22.7, providing evidence of a fundamental university of these exotic states. Credit: © 2015 Masahito Ueda, RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science
An exotic physical effect based on the attraction among three particles has a similar universality to that of common two-body interactions, Yusuke Horinouchi from the University of Tokyo and Masahito Ueda from the RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science have found.

Many physical phenomena are based on the forces between two objects—the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Sun, and the charge that keeps electrons circulating around an . These two-body interactions are universal, allowing us to predict the behavior of multibody systems. The reverse is also generally true: if the force between two objects is too weak to form a stable system, no stable system can be formed by adding more objects.

Yet, around 40 years ago, Vitaly Efimov predicted that under certain circumstances, resonant interactions could allow a system of three to form a stable state when two could not. “An Efimov state is a bound state of three particles that exists even if the attraction between two particles is too small to form a bound state,” says Ueda.

Efimov states are predicted to occur in a wide range of systems, from groups of identical bosons to macromolecules such as DNA. They were first observed experimentally in 2006 in a gas of cold cesium atoms. Two parameters describe an Efimov state: the strength of the interaction between the particles and a parameter related to the low-energy ground state of the system. The interaction strength was previously found to be a universal parameter, independent of, for example, the type of atoms in a gas. In fact, a deeper universality also appears to be common for all Efimov states—with increasing energy the sizes of Efimov states always differ by a factor of 22.7 (Fig. 1).

To further study the properties of different Efimov systems, Ueda and Horinouchi used computer simulations to determine the energetics of systems based on different interaction forces, such as the force between atoms or the force inside an atomic nucleus. Using a method called functional renormalization-group analysis, they found that at low energies, the onset of the Efimov state is characterized by the same parameters irrespective of the system considered.

This commonality of both parameters describing Efimov systems suggests an unexpected and fundamental universality that could extend to even more complex systems, comments Ueda. “With our work, one can envisage that not just three-body phenomena but also related four-body or more-body phenomena may be universal.”

Explore further: Physicists provide experimental proof of theorized Efimov states

More information: Horinouchi, Y. & Ueda, M. Onset of a limit cycle and universal three-body parameter in Efimov physics. Physical Review Letters 114, 025301 (2015).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.025301

 http://www.analogsf.com/0610/altview.shtml

BACK IN TIME THROUGH OTHER DIMENSIONS

The subject of this column brings to mind an old physics-based limerick (one of the clean ones) that I learned many years ago in graduate school . It goes something like this:

There was a young lady named Bright,

who could travel much faster than light.

         She set out one day,

         in a relative way,

and returned on the previous night.

The physics behind the limerick is that within Einstein’s special theory of relativity there is a subtle connection between faster-than-light and backwards-in-time travel. If you could do one, then in principle you could also do the other. But relativity is carefully contrived to prevent superluminal and back-in-time travel and communication.

To physicists, these prohibitions are something of a comfort, because they evade problems with mind-bending consequences that we don’t know how to solve. Even sending messages backwards-in-time has mind-bending consequences and has become a standard theme in science fiction (examples: Isaac Asimov’s “thiotimoline” pseudo-science-fact articles inAstounding, Greg Benford’s Timescape, Jim Hogan’s Thrice in Time, etc.).

In the real world, we seem to be prevented from sending back-in-time messages by that least-understood law of physics, the Law of Causality, which is the requirement that a cause must precede its effects in all reference frames. However, new cracks may be appearing in the iron wall of causality. In this column, I want to discuss some recent work at the boundaries of string theory and general relativity that seems to offer a way to circumvent the back-in-time barrier.

 

Some of the modern variants of string theory describe our universe as a 3+1-dimensional space-time “brane,” essentially a thin 4-dimensional membrane embedded in a higher-dimensional space (for further reading, see my AV column in the May 2003 Analog). Almost all of the known particles (electrons, quarks, photons) are restricted to this 4-brane and can move only within it. Further, the three strongest forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) are allowed to act only within the brane. Therefore, for most purposes the 3+1 dimensional brane is the only relevant universe, since almost nothing can go outside it.

However, according to some models, the force of gravity gets special treatment in extra dimensions. It is free to leave the brane and spread out into the large extra dimensions in which the brane is embedded. This provides an explanation of why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the other forces: the lines of force for gravity can spread out into the other dimensions, leaving fewer force lines and a much reduced force strength on the brane itself.

Building on this basic scenario, theoretical physicists H. Päs and S. Pakvasa of the University of Hawaii, and T. J. Weiler of Vanderbilt University (I’ll call them PPW) have constructed a scheme for back-in-time communication. The starting point of their scheme is to examine the relativistic “enforcement rules” that normally prevent back-in-time communication. These rules are the Lorentz transformations, devised by Albert Einstein to describe how space and time behave when the observer or the object observed is moving near the speed of light. Within these rules, there is no possibility of superluminal or back-in-time communication.

PPW demonstrate that it is relatively easy to describe an extended universe in which the Lorentz transformations are strictly observed on the brane, but not in the outside “bulk” occupied by the extra dimensions. In particular, within the bulk volume of the extra dimensions the limiting speed (i.e., the speed of light) may be different from its value on the brane. They construct a plausible space-time metric in which the off-brane limiting speed is superluminal and grows quadratically with distance from the brane. This “asymmetrically warped brane universe” is rather like an onion, with each “onion layer” in the bulk having its own limiting speed and its own Lorentz transformations. In such a universe, trajectories that cut across such onion layers are not “Lorentz invariant,” i.e., they can break the local speed limits.

Having found a space-time metric to describe a plausible brane universe, PPW consider a path that leaves the brane, travels some distance in the extra-dimensional bulk outside, and then re-enters the brane. They show that such a path, while it may facilitate moving from one point in space to another at the equivalent of a faster-than-light speed, would not in itself represent backwards-in-time signaling (which they refer to as a “closed timelike curve”). For example, if you could make an extra-dimensional jump from here to Alpha-Centauri in six months, that would be a remarkable feat, but it would not in itself produce any problems for the Law of Causality.

However, PPW go on to consider a more elaborate scenario in which a signal passes out along one such trajectory and then returns to its 3-space starting point along another trajectory in extra-dimensional bulk, with the two trajectories threading through bulk regions with differing limiting speeds. They show that if the extra-dimensional speeds have the right relationship, one can construct a situation in which a signal following this path arrives before it is sent. This constitutes a “timelike loop,” and therefore, it produces a violation of the Law of Causality.

Is this a valid calculation, or did they do something illegal in their use of general relativity? Fortunately, the general relativists have devised several ways of evaluating the merit of calculations of this kind. Such evaluations are based on how well a calculation satisfies various energy conditions that have been suggested as possible “rules of the game” for what our universe will allow. (See the discussion of such rules in my AV column “‘Outlawing’ Wormholes and Warp Drives” in the May 2005Analog). The PPW scheme for producing a timelike loop does well with these energy conditions, satisfying the null, weak, and dominant energy conditions on the brane and violating only the strong energy condition. We note that the strong energy condition is also violated by some well-known quantum processes.

 

This all sounds very nice, of course, but it raises the crucial question of just how one might manage to send a signal along a trajectory through the extra dimensions outside this brane we call home. PPW suggest a way of doing this. According to the version of string theory that they use, there are two particle-types that are not constrained to stay within the brane of our universe. These particles are gravitons and sterile neutrinos. These can be considered as possible carriers of the PPW signal.

As signal carriers, gravitons (quantum gravity waves) can probably be ruled out, at least for the near future. LIGO, the biggest and most sensitive detector of gravity waves that our best earth-bound technology can produce (See my AV column on LIGO in the April 1998 Analog), has been in operation for several years and so far has reported no detection of gravity waves from any sources, including super-intense sources like merging neutron-star or black-hole binary systems. If it’s hard to detect a strong gravity wave, it should be even harder to use them for signaling. There have been some recent ideas about the generation and detection of high-frequency gravity waves, which may make the signal transfer problem easier, but presently there is no technology for doing this.

That leaves sterile neutrinos, which will require some explanation. According to the standard model, there are three “flavors” of neutrinos: e, mu, and tau. These are the neutral “twins” of the electron, the mu lepton, and the tau lepton. From recent measurements with the SNO and Super-K neutrino detectors, we now know that a neutrino of a given flavor can “oscillate” into other flavors as it travels some distance. For example, SNO measurements tell us that about 2/3 of the e-type neutrinos produced in the Sun have oscillated into mu neutrinos before arriving at the SNO detector buried deep in a mine in Sudbury, Canada. The Super-K neutrino detector in Japan has provided evidence that the mu neutrinos from cosmic rays oscillate into tau neutrinos on their way to the detector.

Overall, there have been a number of large neutrino detector experiments studying neutrino oscillations in one way or another, and all but one of them give a consistent picture. The wild-card experiment is the LSND measurement at Los Alamos, which measured neutrinos made with the very intense 800 MeV proton beam from the LANSE (formerly LAMPF) accelerator and ran from 1993 to 1998. The neutrino detection measurements from LSND do not fit with the other measurement results. The possibilities are (a) LSND has some fundamental error, or (b) it is observing the oscillation of muon neutrinos into a hypothetical fourth flavor of neutrino called “sterile neutrinos.” Possibility (a) is now being checked by the miniBOONE experiment at Fermi Lab.

If LSND did observe the oscillation of mu neutrinos into sterile neutrinos, that’s a very interesting result, in the context of the present discussion. Sterile neutrinos do not participate in the weak interaction, and are allowed to leave our brane in the same way as gravitons and to have trajectories involving the extra dimensions. Therefore, if sterile neutrinos exist, there is a possible experimental test of the PPW ideas.

One could imagine an experiment in which a modulated beam of mu neutrinos produced by collisions and decays at a large accelerator are beamed down into the Earth, where they oscillate into sterile neutrinos, go on an excursion in other dimensions, oscillate back to mu neutrinos, and are detected by a large detector located at some large distance around on another side of the Earth. According to PPW, if that trajectory was just right, the signal just might arrive before it was sent.

 

The SF implications of back in time signaling are fairly obvious, but let’s consider them. If you receive a signal from the future, you can either (a) take actions that are consistent with the message, or (b) take actions that are inconsistent with it. Under scenario (a) you might receive tomorrow’s winning Power-Ball Lotto number, buy a ticket for that number, win the lottery, and then send your past self a message containing the winning number to complete the loop. Under scenario (b) you might receive a message warning that tomorrow you will be killed in a car accident, so you carefully stay home, avoid the accident, and change the future.

How, exactly, the universe deals with such positive (a) or negative (b) timelike loops depends on your model of how to resolve time-travel paradoxes. The deterministic scenario is that the future is fixed and cannot be changed, so only scenario (a) events are possible. In some scenarios, usually not well defined in their implications, a scenario (b) event causes the old future to fade away and be replaced by a new future. The novels Timescape, Thrice in Time, and many other SF works implicitly use this model. A third model, based loosely on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, is that a scenario (b) event produces a branch universe in which history follows a different path. In my novel, Einstein’s Bridge, I used yet another model in which the creation of a timelike loop “unravels” the universe back to the beginning of the loop, so that it can proceed on a different path.

There are probably even more ways of dealing with time-travel paradoxes. If PPW are correct, we may have to start thinking seriously about them.

 

AV Columns Online: Electronic reprints of over 120 “The Alternate View” columns by John G. Cramer, previously published in Analog, are available online at: http://www.npl.washington.edu/av. The preprint referenced below can be obtained at:http://www.arxiv.org.

 

Reference:

Closed Timelike Curves:

“Closed timelike curves in asymmetrically warped brane universes,” Heinrich Päs, Sandip Pakvasa, and Thomas J. Weiler, ArXiv preprint gr-qc/0603045 (March 13, 2006).

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmic-mismatch-hints-at-the-existence-of-a-sterile-neutrino-1.14752

Cosmic mismatch hints at the existence of a ‘sterile’ neutrino

A disagreement between observations of galaxy clusters and the cosmic background radiation could be explained by the existence of a fourth type of neutrino.

20 February 2014

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

T2K

A computer reconstruction of a neutrino event in the cylindrically-shaped Super-Kamiokande detector. Each coloured dot represents a photomultiplier detecting light.

An article by Scientific American.

Neutrinos, some of the most abundant particles in the universe, are also among the most mysterious. We know they have mass but not how much. We know they come in at least three types, or ‘flavours’ — but there may be more. A new study found that a mismatch between observations of galaxy clusters and measurements of the cosmic background radiation could be explained if neutrinos are more massive than is usually thought. It also offers tantalizing hints that a fourth type of hitherto unseen neutrino exists.

The tension between galaxy clusters and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has been a brewing problem, albeit one that might be resolved simply by getting better measurements in the coming years (see ‘Missing galaxy mass found‘). The background radiation shows the small density variations in the early universe that would eventually cause matter to clump in some places and form voids in others. We can see the end product of this clumping in the recent universe by observing the spread of galaxy clusters across space.

The best measurements of the cosmic background radiation came from the European Space Agency’s orbiting Planck telescope in March 2013. Galaxy-cluster measurements, on the other hand, come from various methods that include mapping the spread of mass across the universe by looking for the gravitational lensing, or warping of light, it causes. The two measurements, however, are inconsistent with one another. “We compare the universe at an early time to a later time, and we have a model that extrapolates between the two,” says Richard Battye of the University of Manchester, UK, co-author of the new study1 published on 7 February in Physical Review Letters(PRL). “If you stick to the model that fits the CMB data, then number of clusters you find is a factor of two lower than you expect.”

More from Scientific American.

The discrepancy could be explained if neutrinos have hindered the process of galaxy cluster formation — a possibility if neutrinos have a large enough mass. At some point in the past, the universe is thought to have crossed an energy threshold that corresponded to the neutrino mass: When the universe was hot and dense in its early life, neutrinos would have been relativistic, moving at the speed of light. In this state they would not have clumped together under the force of their own gravitational attraction. After the universe cooled and crossed the energy threshold, however, neutrinos would have slowed down and started moving at sublight-speeds. Then they would finally begin to cluster along with the rest of the matter in the universe. “The number of galaxy clusters you would see in the universe is a function of neutrino mass,” Battye explains. “The more massive they are, the larger contribution they make to the total matter density of the universe, and they suppress this cluster-formation process slightly.”

Battye and his collaborator, Adam Moss of the University of Nottingham, UK, found that the number of clusters we see today can be explained if the three neutrino masses add up to about 0.32 electron volt (give or take 0.081), or about a third of a billionth the mass of a proton. Previous estimates had suggested only that the neutrino masses must add up to at least 0.06 electron volt. Such a large total mass would be surprising and “very interesting with lots of very positive consequences,” says theoretical physicist André de Gouvêa of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who was not involved in the study. For instance, it would indicate that the three flavours of neutrino — electron, muon and tau — have almost exactly the same mass, which would be somewhat unexpected. This “would impact the way we try to understand the mechanism behind neutrino masses,” de Gouvêa says.

Furthermore, Battye and Moss found evidence that a fourth, ‘sterile’ type of neutrino might exist. “The idea is very exciting,” says physicist Joseph Formaggio of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, also not part of the study. “Three neutrinos is what we expect. A fourth neutrino is throwing the book out the window — physics beyond what we call the Standard Model.” The three known neutrinos have the bizarre ability to transform from one flavour to another. A sterile neutrino would not be able to switch flavours, and would interact even less with normal matter than the already reticent known flavours.

Theorists have long suggested sterile neutrinos might exist, but so far proof of them has been elusive. Hints at some particle accelerator experiments2 lately have begun to suggest they are out there, however. “What’s really interesting is that the mass of this sterile neutrino, [according to Battye and Moss,] is consistent with what the other experiments see,” Formaggio says. “I think people are starting to look at the data and say maybe there’s something there.” And coincidentally another study3 supporting the idea of a sterile neutrino as well as heavier neutrino masses was also published in the same issue of PRL. That work, led by Mark Wyman of the University of Chicago, also examined tensions between the Planck data and galaxy clusters and came to similar conclusions as Battye and Moss did.

For many years neutrinos were thought to be completely massless, but the discovery that they can swap flavours also proved that they have at least a little bit of mass. Each flavour’s state is thought to be a mixture of the three unknown neutrino masses — called mass 1, mass 2 and mass 3 for the time being — and this mixing is why any flavour has a chance of turning into one of the other flavours over time. The transformation is only possible if the mass states are different from one another, and such a difference is only possible if neutrinos’ mass is nonzero, Formaggio explains.

Experiments aiming to catch neutrinos in the act of switching flavours could help pin down the differences between the neutrino masses and tell us which weighs more—the so-called neutrino-mass hierarchy. One such experiment, called NuMI Off-Axis νe Appearance (NOvA), measured its first neutrinos last week. The experiment creates a beam of neutrinos at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) near Chicago and sends them to two detectors — one near Fermilab and another 800 kilometres away in Ash River, Minnesota. All of the particles start as muon neutrinos but some precious few arrive at the distant detector having turned into electron neutrinos, which create a different signature. The frequency at which this happens is related to the difference between electron and muon neutrinos’ masses.

Another experiment based in Japan called the Japanese Tokai to Kamioka (T2K) project also looks for these transformations. The collaboration announced last week that it had observed a record total of 28 candidate mutations from muon into electron neutrinos, with only about five of the events predicted to be other processes masquerading as the real thing. It is the strongest evidence to date for this type of neutrino oscillation, although much more data will be needed to answer questions about neutrinos’ masses. “It’s sort of like a big mile marker in a long race,” says Formaggio, who wrote an essay accompanying the publication of the result on 10 February in PRL. The two experiments are complementary, says NOvA deputy project leader Rick Tesarek. “There are some capabilities that NOvA has that T2K doesn’t have” and vice versa. The experiments use different detector technology that is sensitive to different effects, and the NOvA project has a longer distance between its neutrino beam and the far detectors.

As these experiments gather more data the secrets of neutrino masses may be revealed. The coming years should also clarify whether galaxy cluster measurements are truly incompatible with the cosmic background radiation data, and hence whether they point toward heavier neutrino masses and/or a sterile neutrino. “The measurements are improving all the time,” Battye says. “I’d imagine in five years time we’d know hopefully whether this is right or not.”

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14752

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-dark.html

(Phys.org) —Galaxies are often found in groups or clusters, the largest known aggregations of matter and dark matter. The Milky Way, for example, is a member of the “Local Group” of about three dozen galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy located about 2 million light-years away. Very large clusters can contain thousands of galaxies, all bound together by gravity. The closest large cluster of galaxies to us, the Virgo Cluster with about 2000 members, is about 50 million light-years away.

The space between galaxies is not empty. It is filled with hot intergalactic gas whose temperature is of order ten million kelvin, or even higher. The gas is enriched with heavy elements that escape from the galaxies and accumulate in the intracluster medium over billions of years of galactic and stellar evolution. These intracluster gas elements can be detected from their emission lines in X-ray, and include oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, argon, calcium, iron, nickel, and even chromium and manganese.

The relative abundances of these elements contain valuable information on the rate of supernovae in the different types of in the clusters since supernovae make and/or disburse them into the gas. Therefore it came as something of a surprise when CfA astronomers and their colleagues discovered a faint line corresponding to no known element. Esra Bulbul, Adam Foster, Randall Smith, Scott Randall and their team were studying the averaged X-ray spectrum of a set of seventy-three clusters (including Virgo) looking for emission lines too faint to be seen in any single one when they uncovered a line with no known match in a particular spectral interval not expected to have any features.

The scientists propose a tantalizing suggestion: the line is the result of the decay of a putative, long-sought-after dark matter particle, the so-called sterile neutrino. It had been suggested that the hot X-ray emitting in a galaxy might be a good place to look for dark matter signatures, and if the sterile neutrino result is confirmed it would mark a breakthrough in research (it is of course possible that it is a statistical or other error). Recent unpublished results from another group tend to support the detection of this feature; the team suggests that observations with the planned Japanese Astro-H X-ray mission in 2015 will be critical to confirm and resolve the nature of this line.

Explore further: Mysterious X-ray signal intrigues astronomers

More information: “Detection of an Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-Ray Spectrum of Galaxy Clusters,” Esra Bulbul, Maxim Markevitch, Adam Foster, Randall K. Smith, Michael Loewenstein, and Scott W. Randall, ApJ 789, 13, 2014.

Provided by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-mysterious-x-ray-intrigues-astronomers.html#nRlv

(Phys.org) —A mysterious X-ray signal has been found in a detailed study of galaxy clusters using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and ESA’s XMM-Newton. One intriguing possibility is that the X-rays are produced by the decay of sterile neutrinos, a type of particle that has been proposed as a candidate for dark matter.

While holding exciting potential, these results must be confirmed with additional data to rule out other explanations and determine whether it is plausible that dark matter has been observed.

Astronomers think dark matter constitutes 85% of the matter in the Universe, but does not emit or absorb light like “normal” matter such as protons, neutrons and electrons that make up the familiar elements observed in planets, stars, and galaxies. Because of this, scientists must use indirect methods to search for clues about dark matter.

The latest results from Chandra and XMM-Newton consist of an unidentified X-ray, that is, a spike of intensity at a very specific wavelength of X-ray light. Astronomers detected this emission line in the Perseus galaxy cluster using both Chandra and XMM-Newton. They also found the line in a combined study of 73 other galaxy clusters with XMM-Newton.

“We know that the dark matter explanation is a long shot, but the pay-off would be huge if we’re right,” said Esra Bulbul of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Mass. who led the study. “So we’re going to keep testing this interpretation and see where it takes us.”

The authors suggest this emission line could be a signature from the decay of a “sterile neutrino.” Sterile neutrinos are a hypothetical type of neutrino that is predicted to interact with normal matter only via gravity. Some scientists have proposed that sterile neutrinos may at least partially explain dark matter.

“We have a lot of work to do before we can claim, with any confidence, that we’ve found sterile neutrinos,” said Maxim Markevitch, a co-author from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “But just the possibility of finding them has us very excited.”

One source of uncertainty is that the detection of this emission line is pushing the capabilities of the two observatories in terms of sensitivity. Also, there may be explanations other than if this X-ray emission line is deemed to be real. There are ways that normal matter in the cluster could have produced the line, although the team’s analysis suggested that all of these would involve unlikely changes to our understanding of physical conditions in the galaxy cluster or the details of the atomic physics of extremely hot gases.

The authors note that even if the sterile neutrino interpretation is correct, their detection does not necessarily imply that all of dark matter is composed of these particles.

“Our next step is to combine data from Chandra and JAXA’s Suzaku mission for a large number of to see if we find the same X-ray signal,” said co-author Adam Foster, also of CfA. “There are lots of ideas out there about what these data could represent. We may not know for certain until Astro-H launches, with a new type of X-ray detector that will be able to measure the line with more precision than currently possible.”

Because of the tantalizing potential of these results, after submitting to TheAstrophysical Journal the authors posted a copy of the paper to a publicly accessible database, arXiv. This forum allows scientists to examine a paper prior to its acceptance into a peer-reviewed journal. The paper ignited a flurry of activity, with 55 new papers having already cited this work, mostly involving theories discussing the emission line as possible evidence for dark matter. Some of the papers explore the sterile neutrino interpretation, but others suggest different types of candidate particles, such as the axion, may have been detected.

Only a week after Bulbul et al. placed their paper on the arXiv, a different group, led by Alexey Boyarsky of Leiden University in the Netherlands, placed a paper on the arXiv reporting evidence for an emission line at the same energy in XMM-Newton observations of the galaxy M31 and the outskirts of the Perseus cluster. This strengthens the evidence that the emission line is real and not an instrumental artifact.

The paper describing the new Chandra and XMM-Newton observations appears in the June 20, 2014 issue of The Astrophysical Journal. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., manages the Chandra program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., controls Chandra’s science and flight operations.

Explore further: XMM-Newton reveals cosmic collision in the Bullet Group

More information: The paper describing the new Chandra and XMM-Newton observations appears in the June 20, 2014, issue of The Astrophysical Journal:dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/13

Journal reference: Astrophysical Journal search and more info

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-glimmer-dark.html#nRlv

Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

Feb 27, 2014
Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter
Dark matter.
The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported a very similar signal just a few days earlier.

Sterile neutrino has mass

The two groups this week reported that they have found an indirect signal from in the spectra of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They made this discovery independent of one another, but came to the same conclusion: A tiny spike is hidden in the X-ray spectra of the Perseus galaxy cluster, at a frequency that cannot be explained by any known atomic transition. The Harvard group see the same spike in many other galaxy clusters, while Boyarsky also finds it in the nearby Andromeda galaxy. The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called ‘sterile’ because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos. A sterile neutrino does have mass, and so could be responsible for the missing dark matter

Minor expansion of the standard model for elementary particles

The first indications for the existence of dark matter in space were found more than eighty years ago, but there are still many questions surrounding this invisible matter. Sterile neutrinos are a highly attractive candidate for the , because they only call for a minor extension of the already known and extensively tested standard model for . Boyarsky and his colleagues have already had this extension of the ready for some time, but were waiting for the first observation of the mysterious particle. Measurements at higher resolution will shed light on the matter, and there is reason to hope that the spectral line just discovered will finally eliminate the problem of the missing mass.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-scientific-breakthrough-door-universe.html#nRlv

Top scientific breakthrough opens door to understanding universe

Mar 11, 2013
Physicists at Virginia Tech, as part of a collaboration with U.S. and Chinese researchers, took part in one of 2012’s top scientific breakthroughs according toScience magazine. It’s a breakthrough that could have a significant impact on physics and the universe as we understand it.

The team, working at the Daya Bay reactor facility in China, discovered the third and final known neutrino mixing angle. The discovery was heralded by the magazine as one of nine runners-up to the discovery of the Higgs-boson.

“This is a well-deserved recognition for a result that has changed significantly the research in an important area in physics,” said College of Science Dean Lay Nam Chang, himself a physicist. “The role Virginia Tech is playing in the Daya Bay collaboration contributed substantially to a robust determination of this last mixing angle.”

Among the scientists at Virginia Tech who took part are, Leo Piilonen, department of physics chair, physics professors Patrick Huber and Jon Link, postdoctoral researcher Deb Mohapatra, Joseph Hor of Hong Kong, and Meng Yue of Qiqihar, China, both doctoral students in physics, and lab technician Jo Ellen Morgan.

The recognition in , “feels good,” according to Link. “Our work is a little esoteric; it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but it’s nice to be recognized.”

And the discovery of the last mixing angle isn’t the end of the line for Virginia Tech researchers. In fact, the discovery may have opened exciting new doors in physics.

“The , which describes the behavior of all particles from to the , is very frustrating,” Link said. “The model works so well that for decades everywhere we’ve looked we’ve found things to be in agreement with the model. If that keeps up, we’ll be done measuring the known parameters in 15 years.

“But in neutrino physics there may be something interesting going on, and Virginia Tech has been at the forefront of studying this for some time,” Link said. “There is evidence of a fourth type of neutrino and possibly more. The evidence has shown up in different places and it’s always marginal. For example, when we look at neutrinos coming from a nuclear reactor, like Daya Bay, we see about 6 percent fewer than we expect from calculation. This can be interpreted as evidence of additional neutrinos mixing with the three known types.”

Ironically, it turns out that when dealing with the tiniest of particles, a door to a potential fourth neutrino is being opened in space, by astronomers looking at much larger objects.

When the universe was formed it was opaque. A seething plasma of charged particles through which even light could not pass unmolested. As the universe cooled electrons and protons paired off, and by around 300,000 years the universe was ‘transparent’.

“When astronomers look at the light coming from the earliest moments of the transparent universe, they see ripples of structure which can tell them a lot, including the number of particles involved,” Link said.

And what numbers do astronomers count? Well, for starters, they count four neutrinos.

“When they measure the number of neutrino-like particles they’re finding that it’s more consistent with four than with three. If it holds up, this extra particle may not be a neutrino at all,” Link said. “It may be some other unknown light particle. But if it is another neutrino, it’s not a part of the standard model and, interestingly, it does not behave like the other three neutrinos. We call it a sterile neutrino, because it’s even less engaged in the world around it than normal neutrinos.”

The significance of a sterile neutrino could fill in a lot of blanks for scientists involved in questions dealing with the earliest moments of the universe and the nature of matter.

“It could account for many of the different anomalies we see,” Link said. “Or it could just be we’re not measuring precisely enough – but it’s a tantalizing hint.”

Link and Huber have been working for some time on the case for the sterile neutrino. In 2011 the pair hosted a conference at Virginia Tech which ended in a motion to write a white paper to investigate the evidence and see if new experiments are needed. Sixty people attended the conference in person and more than 200 contributed to the white paper.

“Virginia Tech is at the vanguard of neutrino research,” Link said. “It’s an exciting time because there are a number of theories suggesting multiple sterile neutrinos. It’s possible that one or more slightly heavier sterile neutrinos could be responsible for.”

The matter we’re made of, and of all the stuff we see, is only about five percent of the universe. There’s another 20 percent of dark matter which was originally postulated to account for the fact that when scientists looked at galaxies they could count the light and see the gasses through radio waves – but it wasn’t enough mass in regular matter to account for the speed of rotation of galaxies.

“It turns out there is this dark matter, but we don’t know what it is because we’ve never observed a particle that could explain it,” Link explained. “But we assume it’s a weakly interacting particle that may be all around us and moving through us. That’s frustrating,” he admits, “but it’s possible that if this mystery particle, the , exists a heavier version could explain dark matter.”

Explaining dark matter: Just the cup of tea for Virginia Tech physicists.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-scientific-breakthrough-door-universe.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-glimmer-dark.html#nRlv

Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

Feb 27, 2014
Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter
Dark matter.
The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported a very similar signal just a few days earlier.

Sterile neutrino has mass

The two groups this week reported that they have found an indirect signal from in the spectra of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They made this discovery independent of one another, but came to the same conclusion: A tiny spike is hidden in the X-ray spectra of the Perseus galaxy cluster, at a frequency that cannot be explained by any known atomic transition. The Harvard group see the same spike in many other galaxy clusters, while Boyarsky also finds it in the nearby Andromeda galaxy. The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called ‘sterile’ because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos. A sterile neutrino does have mass, and so could be responsible for the missing dark matter

Minor expansion of the standard model for elementary particles

The first indications for the existence of dark matter in space were found more than eighty years ago, but there are still many questions surrounding this invisible matter. Sterile neutrinos are a highly attractive candidate for the , because they only call for a minor extension of the already known and extensively tested standard model for . Boyarsky and his colleagues have already had this extension of the ready for some time, but were waiting for the first observation of the mysterious particle. Measurements at higher resolution will shed light on the matter, and there is reason to hope that the spectral line just discovered will finally eliminate the problem of the missing mass.

Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

Feb 27, 2014
Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter
Dark matter.
The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported a very similar signal just a few days earlier.

Sterile neutrino has mass

The two groups this week reported that they have found an indirect signal from in the spectra of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They made this discovery independent of one another, but came to the same conclusion: A tiny spike is hidden in the X-ray spectra of the Perseus galaxy cluster, at a frequency that cannot be explained by any known atomic transition. The Harvard group see the same spike in many other galaxy clusters, while Boyarsky also finds it in the nearby Andromeda galaxy. The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called ‘sterile’ because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos. A sterile neutrino does have mass, and so could be responsible for the missing dark matter

Minor expansion of the standard model for elementary particles

The first indications for the existence of dark matter in space were found more than eighty years ago, but there are still many questions surrounding this invisible matter. Sterile neutrinos are a highly attractive candidate for the , because they only call for a minor extension of the already known and extensively tested standard model for . Boyarsky and his colleagues have already had this extension of the ready for some time, but were waiting for the first observation of the mysterious particle. Measurements at higher resolution will shed light on the matter, and there is reason to hope that the spectral line just discovered will finally eliminate the problem of the missing mass.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-glimmer-dark.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-mysterious-x-ray-intrigues-astronomers.html#nRlv

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-dark.html

References

  1. Battye, R. A. & Moss, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 051303 (2014).

    Show context

  2. Aguilar-Arevalo, A. A. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 181801 (2010).

    Show context

  3. Wyman, M., Rudd, D. H., Ali Vanderveld, R. & Hu, W. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 051302 (2014).

    Show context

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: