From: goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 9:33:41 AM UTC-6, ben...@hotmail.com wrote:   
   > On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 7:58:39 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:   
   > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 11:02:05 AM UTC-6, ben...@hotmail.com   
   wrote:   
   > > > LC,=20   
   > > > Thank you for your pointer, on FQXi, to Strominger for an introduction   
   > > > to BH hairs.  I have seen two of his 2017 videos of conference sessions   
   > > > at Cambridge and Edinburgh.=20   
   > > >=20   
   > > > 1.  I suspect (by analogy with my "Rasch pairs" work making 1-D metrics   
   > > > from binary judgments made on pairs of mundane classical objects) that   
   > > > real particle pairs (for Hawking radiation) can only originate in a   
   > > > spacetime. So in the limit as the (stretched) horizon is asymptotically   
   > > > approached there is less and less chance of a real fermion pair being   
   > > > created.  Maybe this could be related to the trans-planckian problem?=20   
   > > > If I understand it well enough, the trans-planckinan problem is that the   
   > > > pairs have huge energy pushing back their pair creation to the time of   
   > > > the BH creation (and hence before the spacetime is lost on a stretched   
   > > > horizon). That would seem to fit in with pair creation needing to be set   
   > > > in a spacetime.  Has  the trans- planckian problem been overcome or has   
   > > > it been pigeon-holed while work pushes ahead?=20   
   > > >=20   
   > > > 2.  I have a number of other questions but will limit them to one or two   
   > > > related to CCCs.  Can Penrose's CCC nodes and BH's stretched boundaries   
   > > > be equivalent.  One seen from inside our universe (query being inside a   
   > > > BH) and the other seen within our universe (looking at a BH from outside   
   > > > the BH)? Could the CCC node have hairs too?  Up until recently I thought   
   > > > of a CCC node as being a singularity (a BEC of soft photons in one   
   > > > state), but my rasch work suggests that the CCC spacetime could break   
   > > > down gradually. Likewise, doesn't the internal metric of a BH break down   
   > > > gradually as the Page Time is appproached?=20   
   > > >=20   
   > > > The smaller the confinement, the larger the energy required. QCD->   
   > > > QED/weak -> gravity.  The less energy the bigger the theatre of   
   > > > operations. Do gravitons formed from very soft photon entanglements have   
   > > > a role connecting very large spacetimes to one another?   
   > >=20   
   > > I am not sure about Penrose's CCC, which is not regarded much by most   
   > > cosmologists. The quantum numbers for a triplet entanglement state of   
   > > two gluons is identical to the quantum numbers of a graviton. The only   
   > > difference is that a gravition is weak, while gluons are strong. So a   
   > > T-duality of r --> 1/r flips a strong coupling constant to a weak one.=20   
   > >=20   
   > > LC   
   >=20   
   > If your graviton acts to attract two electrons to one another, will it   
   > require two interactions, one per electron, or four? (In a much earlier   
   > idea of mine I had two entangled photons attracting two particles   
   > gravitationally using four interactions in total, but much later revised   
   > that to one graviton only requiring two interactions.)=20   
   >=20   
   > Can any such graviton of yours act to repel two particles, as in dark   
   > energy?  (My previous preon model has gravitons in different generations   
   > where the smallest or least complex graviton could exert repulsion while   
   > the higher generation and more complex graviton caused general   
   > attraction. Although both gravitons could, technically, attract and   
   > repel.)=20   
   >=20   
   > I note that Penrose's CCC is not highly regarded, despite my liking the   
   > ideas in it.  The BH hairs and Hawking radiation seem very interesting   
   > and IMO unitary would be the first property to suspect if one property   
   > needs to be eschewed. (As some of the BH contents may pass through the   
   > singularity into a third spacetime?)=20   
   >=20   
   > I note the T duality, which I met in Susskind's onine lectures.  Are you   
   > implying that gravitons only exist within a BH spacetime in connection   
   > with its BH hairs?=20   
   >=20   
   > Ben   
      
   The graviton with respect to fermions is a bit odd. A four vertex   
   interaction of fermions with parallel spins can carry the same   
   quantum number as a graviton if this is charge neutral and massless.   
   A graviton interacting with a fermion results in something odd. A   
   spin 1/2 particle that absorbs a graviton with spin 2 then has   
   either spin 3/2 or 5/2. The first of these is a Rarita-Shwinger   
   field, and we know electrons etc do not convert into this in a   
   gravity field. The RS field can only be an off-shell field that   
   decays back into the fermion and graviton. The spin 5/2 is not   
   physical. What saves the day for there being a single three vertex   
   interaction is supersymmetry. A fermion is associated with a spin   
   1 particle in the (1/2, 1) SUSY doublet. Now the graviton can   
   interact with the fermion through its superpartner. So a fermion   
   quantum fluctuates into being a spin 1 boson that can absorb a   
   graviton. We may then have a nice 3-vertex interaction.=20   
      
   LC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)