Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2019

    am finally splitting this off as a stand-alone page (material used to be at cosmological constant and at F-theory). Added a paragraph linking with inhomogeneous cosmology.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2020
    • (edited Jan 9th 2020)

    I have added a section References – Phenomenology and expanded the section Properties – Phenomenology, pointing out that the recent and very recent contrarian claims in astrophysics would be exactly in line with “Witten’s dark fantasy”. Heh.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2020
    • (edited Feb 18th 2020)

    added pointer to today’s rebuttal of the recent contrarian claim that data prefers a “closed” universe:

    • George Efstathiou, Steven Gratton, The evidence for a spatially flat Universe (arXiv:2002.06892)

    But then I also added pointer to Handley 19 and quoted their abstract as a reply to today’s critique, if you wish. Now the paragraph in total reads as follows:


    Arguments that the PLANCK satellite data actually prefers a closed spatial slices (contrary to the assumption in the current standard model of cosmology):

    A critique of these arguments is given in

    • George Efstathiou, Steven Gratton, The evidence for a spatially flat Universe (arXiv:2002.06892)

    but this critique again rests on just the combination Planck collaboration & baryon acoustic peak (BAO) & supernova-data which the above references argue cannot sensibly be combined.

    From the abstract of Handley 19:

    The curvature parameter tension between Planck 2018, cosmic microwave background lensing, and baryon acoustic oscillation data is measured using the suspiciousness statistic to be 2.5 to 3σ. Conclusions regarding the spatial curvature of the universe which stem from the combination of these data should therefore be viewed with suspicion. Without CMB lensing or BAO, Planck 2018 has a moderate preference for closed universes, with Bayesian betting odds of over 50:1 against a flat universe, and over 2000:1 against an open universe.

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    added pointer to today’s

    • Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, Joseph Silk, Cosmic Discordance: Planck and luminosity distance data exclude LCDM (arXiv:2003.04935)

    Hah!

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    That’s rather remarkable. I’m liking the hypothesis of non-homogeneity more and more. Mathematically and physically, it’s very attractive, and parsimonious.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    Is the supersymmetry being rule out here

    but no finite-energy-excitation of the vacuum appears supersymmetrically, hence fermions and bosons in the model do not appear in supersymmetric spectra,

    enough to rule out MSSM?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020
    • (edited Mar 12th 2020)

    That’s rather remarkable.

    Indeed. This will be (if it holds water) on par with the elimination of the luminiferous aether.

    enough to rule out MSSM?

    Yes, this “D=4D=4, 𝒩=1/2\mathcal{N}= 1/2 supersymmetry” is not the MSSM – or maybe you could think of this as the “MSSM with all supersymmetry completely broken, at all scales”.

    That’s the beauty of it:

    Supersymmetry is completely broken, at all scales (hence making no super-partners appear) – except on the vacuum, in that its only residual effect is to force the bosonic vacuum energy to cancel against the fermionic vacuum energy.

    That, and that it follows from Cohomotopy, of course ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    Supersymmetry is completely broken, at all scales (hence making no super-partners appear)

    wow, I’ve never heard of this sort of model before! Not that I dig through literature or read reviews, but one would have thought that this option would be mentioned now and then, given the current lack of experimental detection of superpartners.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    I’ve never heard of this sort of model before!

    So you haven’t actually looked at the entry: Witten’s Dark Fantasy :-)

    one would have thought that this option would be mentioned now and then

    This is just one of several striking developments of modern physics out there which the dumbed-down public discourse doesn’t pick up on. The others are: b) significant detection of New Physics in the flavour sector, c) promising solution of confined QCD by holography/D-brane models. And all three solutions talk to each other. But not to the public ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    Cool! I haven’t any sense of how much of a constraint it is for an 8-manifold to be an elliptic fibration. Do we know if this is a demanding condition for a Spin(7)Spin(7)-manifold?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2020

    If you want to see the detailed implementation of the Dark Fantasy in F-theory compactifications see these references ny Heckmann et al.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)