Beyond standard model CP violation has been reported by Mat Charles for the LHCb collaboration at the Hadron Collider Physics conference today. Here is the relevant plot in which the cyan coloured band indicating the measurement fails to cross the black dot as predicted by the standard model.

The numerical result which was already rumoured at the weekend is ΔA_{CP} = -0.82% ± 0.25% which is just over 3 sigma significance.

This measurement is sensitive to new physics such as higher mass particles with CP violating interactions so that could be the explanation. On the other hand it is also a very tricky measurement subject to background and systematics. The significance will improve with more data and already twice as much is on tape so this is one to watch. The interesting thing will be to see if the phenomenologists can account for this result using models that are consistent with the lack of other BSM results from ATLAS and CMS.

Update: This is also being reported in other blogs of course e.g. here and here, but for the most expert details see the LHCb public page and the CERN bulletin

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Monday, November 14th, 2011 at 8:37 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

I should have said “potential significance” or something like that. Yes I am a little sceptical too. CDF have also only used half their data for their result and I dont know what D0 have done yet, so there is hope they may confirm or contradict it. This kind of result needs independent confirmation before it can be accepted.

It’s half a femtobarn of data. Somewhat surprising that they could see BSM in this small amount while it would remain invisible in many other, ATLAS/CMS searches, but not impossible.

[…] Résonaances, 14 Nov. 2011 (su explicación del resultado está muy bien); Philip Gibbs, “BSM CPV in LHCb at HCP11,” viXra log, Nov. 14, 2011; GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", […]

We have a bad habit to get accustomed with miracles so that they do not look miracles anymore. People busily calculating loop diagrams for CP breaking containing new exotic heavy particles tend to forget the main point.

Direct CP breaking was observed aeons ago for K-Kbar system and demonstrates arrow of time at single particle level. This is the astonishing new physics. A possible deviation from standard model predictions in D-Dbar system represents just minor technical details and relates to the hadron level whereas the deeper level is quark level.

My view is that the proper understanding requires several new elements:

*The reduction of CKM mixing to different topological mixing for U and D type quarks.

*p-Adic mass calculations giving powerful number theoretical constraints on CKM matrix. In particular, U and D matrices have elements in simple algebraic extension of rationals.

*Zero energy ontology meaning irreversibility of quantum dynamics at single quark level -something totally new- implying among other things that U and D matrices maximize entropy subject to number theoretical constraints.

Anyone interested can find a summary about direct CP breaking in TGD Universe here.

I do not think that direct CP breaking demonstrates arrow of time at single particle level, because unitarity is maintained (CP breaking is compensated by T breaking).

Arrow of time at single particle level is related to breaking unitarity, for instance due to Poincaré resonances and generating a semigroup with associated complex spectral decomposition.

“Arrow of time at single particle level is related to breaking unitarity, for instance due to Poincaré resonances and generating a semigroup with associated complex spectral decomposition.”

Breaking of T-symmetry can be viewed as a limiting case of non-unitary evolution at the single particle level. The latter (first considered by Prigogine and his school) is related to the onset of non-equilibrium dynamics in field theory and requires use of fractal operators. Using this framework, it can be shown that unitarity can be restored but the theory becomes manifestly non-local.

A quick comment. Prigogine theory was formulated a good number of years ago and it is considered relatively old. Fractional calculus was barely known at that time. Since then, fractional dynamics has made significant progress in many branches of theoretical and applied physics, including QFT and particle theory beyond SM.

There are plenty of references showing evolution of concepts and applications from Prigogine’s original work on complex systems to fractional dynamics and fractal operators. I suggest doing a Google search using key words such as Rigged Hilbert spaces, generalized functions, fractional calculus, fractal operators, fractal sets, Hausdorff dimensions and so on. Also note that non-extensive statistical physics and the the theory of q-deformed Lie algebras are closely linked to these topics.

Ervin, if you like q-deformed Lie algebras, then you might appreciate that their representation categories have braided structure, which is my preferred link to the non linear dynamics in the sense that periodic orbits in an attractor can be knotted. In this very abstract world, the non locality becomes more fundamental than it is for traditional complex systems math. This is roughly why people like Witten are mad about knots these days.

Kea, how about non-periodic orbits and strange attractors? Are these also described by a “fine-structure” of knots? Can one say that the braided structure you are alluding to resembles in fact the topology of multifractals?

Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. But note that in True Abstract Land this is undeveloped mathematics territory, which is where good physics should always be, I believe.

“There are plenty of references showing evolution of concepts and applications from Prigogine’s original work on complex systems to fractional dynamics and fractal operators.”

But I asked for references showing the derivation of Prigogine 90s theory _from_ fractional dynamics, because from your “quick comment” I got the (probably wrong) impression that Prigogine theory was superseded by fractional dynamics.

I have searched with relevant key words as “Rigged Hilbert spaces” “fractional calculus” and Prigogine and gives _zero_ references. A less selective search by “Rigged Hilbert spaces” and “fractional calculus” gives only four weak results

Let me quote Prigogine himself in the “End of Certainty” page 38:

“Our work is based on recent progress in functional analysis, a field of mathematics that has come to the forefront only in recent decades. As we shall see, our formulation requires an extended functional space. This new field of mathematics, which uses generalized functions or fractals, as Benoit Mandelbrot called them, is now playing a critical role in the understanding of the laws of nature”.

Nobody said that Prigogine’s ideas are obsolete. His seminal works and insights on complex dynamics have since inspired many to study the deep interplay between fractals, non-equilibrium statistical physics and fractional dynamics. The development and applications of fractal operators is one good example. As I said, there are many references on fractional dynamics and fractal operators (books and articles) that you have chosen to ignore.

Well, I asked you for specific references, but I understand that you cannot cite even one, since these “plenty of references” are top-secret and you would kill every reader of this blog after :-D

I know that vague quotation from Prigogine. I also know that you cannot find the terms “fractal”, “fractional dynamics”, “fractal operators” in his most recent papers. E.g.

Thermodynamic limit, Hilbert space and breaking of time
symmetry. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 373. T. Petrosky, I. Prigogine

you claim that CP breaking does not demonstrate arrow of time at single particle level. You might be of right! The question is whether breaking of T have something to do with the irreversibility or not? I propose that the answer is “yes”.

I would certainly agree with you if I lived in positive energy ontology (the standard one). In zero energy ontology zero energy states correspond to pairs of initial and final states in positive energy ontology and the arrow of time for the dynamics at this level is mapped to arrow of time at the level of zero energy states.

Unitarity is not lost: it is generalized. M-matrix is the analog of thermalized S-matrix: product of hermitian square root of density matrix and the counterpart of ordinary unitary S-matrix. M-matrices in bigger picture form rows of unitary U-matrix which is something new.

In ordinary statistical mechanics and kinetic theory CP is conserved and thus T breaking implies that unitarity is lost and that evolution is irreversible.

CP breaking alone does not demonstrate arrow of time at single particle level when it is compensated by T breaking, so that the whole evolution continues being unitary and reversible.

A rigorous and general description of irreversibility implies the use of non-unitary models, as those developed by Prigogine and his group. Unitarity is recovered as special case. That general description goes beyond S-matrix (and related) descriptions.

Just a half-baked comment about knots. I believe that they are something very very deep. In TGD framework knots and braids associated with preferred 3-surfaces and possibly also 2-knots and 2-braids defined by string world sheets having braids at their ends appear naturally. This because space-time dimension is D=4.

Standard braid theory must be modified to sub-manifold braid theory. Braids reside at 3-surfaces with varying topologies and knot projection must be performed to a preferred 2-surface of M^4xCP_2. To preferred plane M^2 or sphere S^2 at light-cone boundary.

What this means from the point of view of braid theory? A typical new situation is the one in which 3-surface is locally a product of higher genus 2-surface and R so that knot strand can wind around the 2-surface: M-theorist would talk about wrapping of branes. This gives rise to what is called non-planar braid diagrams for which projection to plane produces non-standard crossings. How to cope with this kind of situation?

The answer to the question emerged as Ulla sent me a link to an article telling about algebraic knots. The introduction of the self intersection of knot -virtual crossing- besides the usual crossing below or above can be applied to non-planar braids appearing in sub-manifold braid theory. Virtual crossing combined with the algebraization of the basic moves for braids leads to completely new and very general mathematical concepts such as kei, quandle, rack, and biquandle applying to other mathematical structures.

What makes this interesting to me is that all generalized Feynman diagrams are reduced to sub-manifold braid diagrams at microscopic level by bosonic emergence (bosons as pairs of fermionic wormhole throats). Three-vertices appear only for entire braids and are purely topological whereas braid strands carrying quantum numbers are just re-distributed in vertices. No 3-vertices at the really microscopic level! This is an additional nail to the coffin of divergences in TGD Universe.

By projecting the braid strands of generalized Feynman diagrams to preferred plane M^2, one obtains a unified description of non-planar Feynman diagrams and braid diagrams. The obvious conjecture is that Feynman amplitudes are like knot invariants constructible by gradually reducing non-planar Feynman diagrams to planar ones after which already existing twistorial machinery applies.

Matti, some of us have known about this non planar braid issue for many years, including the importance of working with twistorial geometry. You should read some more of the recent M theory papers.

perhaps it would be good for you to follow what I have been doing during last seven years before representing preceptive comments. I recommend my blog and links there for updating your knowledge. I have written several chapters about twistors in TGD and the role of braids in TGD. For twistors see this. For braids see this.

Non-planar braids emerge naturally when you have a dynamical sub-manifold geometry. As far as I know, branes are the only thing even vaguely resembling this kind of situation. Dimensions are however usually wrong to give anything interesting from the point of view of braids and braids do not emerge naturally as they do in TGD framework. I have also the feeling that Witten is working with classical knots rather than algebraic knots. It seems that it is you have forgotten to read (recent) M theory papers;-).

I mean, what you do is very interesting, if only the foundations would be known. To me, as an complete imbecille, and analphabet, the whole thing seems floating in some undefined frame, and that makes it so very difficult to use.

Ulla, I do not write for people who are untrained in physics and mathematics, and I do not believe quantum gravity belongs to people who insist on working independently of the profession, which is why I have spent most of my life working with professionals. It is too large a subject to be claimed by any individual ‘crackpot’.

Kea,
I guess you have exactly the same problem as Matti. Not even trained physicists understand you. So, why this?

Quantum gravity is nobodys property, also. I do not have the ambition to solve that, only to understand what eg. you are doing. Why must the whole cosmology be redone? Why do you talk of fairy fields and still do your research on dark matter? And claim DM is only neutrinos? And exactly where are your braids in the cosmology? These are not impossible questions to answer even to a person outside the field. The floating condition must be fixed if you want citations.

it seems that we both understand very, very little about emergent categorical geometry;-). I admit this without a slightest feeling of shame but you do not;-).

Speaking seriously, I sense your deep frustration which leads to aggressive behaviors. For few years ago I wrote a recommendation letter for you (dangerous business but I took the risk and emphasized your passionate attitude). My hope was that an environment like Oxford would help you to realize that you must learn certain basics. Seems that I was wrong. Empty buzz words like emergent categorical geometry do not take us anywhere.

Plenty of people (ie. men) have written me ‘recommendation letters’ without having the foggiest idea about my research. Just like plenty of people ‘listen’ to my seminars and read my papers without being impressed, only to have the same idea themselves some years later. I know all this, and I am very, very, very far from impressed by anybody. There are no women in this business at all, and that is because I am the only woman stupid enough to put myself through an entire lifetime of abuse, condescension, bullying, back stabbing, starvation, theft and so on.

And I certainly didn’t need to go to Oxford to learn about academic professionalism. On the contrary, I was shocked by the LACK of professionalism. I have spent an entire lifetime at first class research institutions.

“Well, I asked you for specific references, but I understand that you cannot cite even one, since these “plenty of references” are top-secret and you would kill every reader of this blog after.”

References are NOT top secret. Type in “fractional dynamics, Prigogine” in Google and you get 334,000 entries. Type in “fractional dynamics” and you get about 7 millions entries.

Names like Tarasov, Zaslavsky, West, Grigolini, Metzler, Laskin, Herrman and others were or are involved in developing fractional dynamics following in Prigogine’s path. And some researchers worked closely with Prigogine himself.

But, considering your reply above, it is quite clear to me that you have already made up your mind and are not willing to accept an opposing viewpoint.

and I do obtain 9,450 academic references. Analyzing the references we can see that:

– The first appears because Prigogine is EDITOR of the journal

– Second is unrelated.

– Third appears because cites Nicolis and Prigogine work of 77 on self-organization. (Unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory).

– Fourth unrelated.

– Fiveth appears because cites about Prigogine-Flory-Patterson theory of liquid mixtures (Unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory).

And so on.

I have works of West and Grigolini and are unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory. I have a copy of Tarasov book on fractional dynamics and he cites Prigogine only once and it is the ancient book with Nicolis on self-organization (unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory).

I also know the work of Hermann and Prigogine, but this was early 60s work, completely unrelated to Prigogine LPs theory.

I have above 30 papers by Prigogine and several monographs. And in none he cites, or references “fractional dynamics” or similar. Neither he references works by any of the authors that you cite.

My impression is that your research link between Prigogine theory and fractal dynamics does not exist (otherwise you could give us one or two relevant references in the first reply). And that you seem to confound Prigogine early work on chaos and fractals with his last works in LPS (somewhat related but not identical to).

Prigogine’s work is NOT DIRECTLY related to fractional dynamics and/or fractal operators which barely existed at the time he developed his LPS model. These are development efforts that FOLLOWED his works and philosophy on the dynamics of complex systems and non-equilibrium statistical physics, whether you like it or not.

I am not willing to continue a conversation that simply leads nowhere.

Nominative trashing is the debating technique of labeling a debating technique to identify it as a common and low quality style of argument 3 months ago

With so many fricking parameters, of course the phenomenologists can keep explaining any set of results.

“The significance will improve with more data and already twice as much is on tape so this is one to watch.”

Well, you probably meant: the significance will drop as the fluke goes away with more data, right? ;-)

I should have said “potential significance” or something like that. Yes I am a little sceptical too. CDF have also only used half their data for their result and I dont know what D0 have done yet, so there is hope they may confirm or contradict it. This kind of result needs independent confirmation before it can be accepted.

It’s half a femtobarn of data. Somewhat surprising that they could see BSM in this small amount while it would remain invisible in many other, ATLAS/CMS searches, but not impossible.

[…] Résonaances, 14 Nov. 2011 (su explicación del resultado está muy bien); Philip Gibbs, “BSM CPV in LHCb at HCP11,” viXra log, Nov. 14, 2011; GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", […]

Hopefully the lack of fairies will finally wake up you clowns up.

We have a bad habit to get accustomed with miracles so that they do not look miracles anymore. People busily calculating loop diagrams for CP breaking containing new exotic heavy particles tend to forget the main point.

Direct CP breaking was observed aeons ago for K-Kbar system and demonstrates arrow of time at single particle level. This is the astonishing new physics. A possible deviation from standard model predictions in D-Dbar system represents just minor technical details and relates to the hadron level whereas the deeper level is quark level.

My view is that the proper understanding requires several new elements:

*The reduction of CKM mixing to different topological mixing for U and D type quarks.

*p-Adic mass calculations giving powerful number theoretical constraints on CKM matrix. In particular, U and D matrices have elements in simple algebraic extension of rationals.

*Zero energy ontology meaning irreversibility of quantum dynamics at single quark level -something totally new- implying among other things that U and D matrices maximize entropy subject to number theoretical constraints.

Anyone interested can find a summary about direct CP breaking in TGD Universe here.

I do not think that direct CP breaking demonstrates arrow of time at single particle level, because unitarity is maintained (CP breaking is compensated by T breaking).

Arrow of time at single particle level is related to breaking unitarity, for instance due to Poincaré resonances and generating a semigroup with associated complex spectral decomposition.

“Arrow of time at single particle level is related to breaking unitarity, for instance due to Poincaré resonances and generating a semigroup with associated complex spectral decomposition.”

Breaking of T-symmetry can be viewed as a limiting case of non-unitary evolution at the single particle level. The latter (first considered by Prigogine and his school) is related to the onset of non-equilibrium dynamics in field theory and requires use of fractal operators. Using this framework, it can be shown that unitarity can be restored but the theory becomes manifestly non-local.

Prigogine theory can be applied to but is not limited to field theory.

Prigogine theory is both non-local and non-unitarity. Unitarity and the usual spectral decomposition being recovered under certain approximations.

Juan Ramon,

A quick comment. Prigogine theory was formulated a good number of years ago and it is considered relatively old. Fractional calculus was barely known at that time. Since then, fractional dynamics has made significant progress in many branches of theoretical and applied physics, including QFT and particle theory beyond SM.

Ervin

I would like to see references where fractal dynamics is used to derive Prigogine late 90s theory. Thank you

[…] is van ‘Nieuwe Natuurkunde’, d.w.z. natuurkunde voorbij het Standaard Model. Bron: viXra + Cosmic Variance. Deel deze […]

@ Juan Ramon,

There are plenty of references showing evolution of concepts and applications from Prigogine’s original work on complex systems to fractional dynamics and fractal operators. I suggest doing a Google search using key words such as Rigged Hilbert spaces, generalized functions, fractional calculus, fractal operators, fractal sets, Hausdorff dimensions and so on. Also note that non-extensive statistical physics and the the theory of q-deformed Lie algebras are closely linked to these topics.

Ervin

Ervin, if you like q-deformed Lie algebras, then you might appreciate that their representation categories have braided structure, which is my preferred link to the non linear dynamics in the sense that periodic orbits in an attractor can be knotted. In this very abstract world, the non locality becomes more fundamental than it is for traditional complex systems math. This is roughly why people like Witten are mad about knots these days.

Kea, how about non-periodic orbits and strange attractors? Are these also described by a “fine-structure” of knots? Can one say that the braided structure you are alluding to resembles in fact the topology of multifractals?

Cheers,

Ervin

Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. But note that in True Abstract Land this is undeveloped mathematics territory, which is where good physics should always be, I believe.

“There are plenty of references showing evolution of concepts and applications from Prigogine’s original work on complex systems to fractional dynamics and fractal operators.”

But I asked for references showing the derivation of Prigogine 90s theory _from_ fractional dynamics, because from your “quick comment” I got the (probably wrong) impression that Prigogine theory was superseded by fractional dynamics.

I have searched with relevant key words as “Rigged Hilbert spaces” “fractional calculus” and Prigogine and gives _zero_ references. A less selective search by “Rigged Hilbert spaces” and “fractional calculus” gives only four weak results

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Rigged+Hilbert+space%22+%22fractional+calculus%22

and none relevant to my original asking. A search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=“Rigged+Hilbert+space”+”fractional+dynamics”

gives zero results again. Therefore where are the plenty of references?

I know non-extensive statistical physics, q-entropies and that (i) are rudely criticized and (ii) do not lead to derivation of Prigogine theory.

@ Juan Ramon,

Let me quote Prigogine himself in the “End of Certainty” page 38:

“Our work is based on recent progress in functional analysis, a field of mathematics that has come to the forefront only in recent decades. As we shall see, our formulation requires an extended functional space. This new field of mathematics, which uses generalized functions or fractals, as Benoit Mandelbrot called them, is now playing a critical role in the understanding of the laws of nature”.

Nobody said that Prigogine’s ideas are obsolete. His seminal works and insights on complex dynamics have since inspired many to study the deep interplay between fractals, non-equilibrium statistical physics and fractional dynamics. The development and applications of fractal operators is one good example. As I said, there are many references on fractional dynamics and fractal operators (books and articles) that you have chosen to ignore.

Let’s agree to disagree on this topic.

Cheers,

Ervin

Well, I asked you for specific references, but I understand that you cannot cite even one, since these “plenty of references” are top-secret and you would kill every reader of this blog after :-D

I know that vague quotation from Prigogine. I also know that you cannot find the terms “fractal”, “fractional dynamics”, “fractal operators” in his most recent papers. E.g.

Thermodynamic limit, Hilbert space and breaking of time

symmetry. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 373. T. Petrosky, I. Prigogine

But thank you for talking

Dear Juan Ramon Gonzalez,

you claim that CP breaking does not demonstrate arrow of time at single particle level. You might be of right! The question is whether breaking of T have something to do with the irreversibility or not? I propose that the answer is “yes”.

I would certainly agree with you if I lived in positive energy ontology (the standard one). In zero energy ontology zero energy states correspond to pairs of initial and final states in positive energy ontology and the arrow of time for the dynamics at this level is mapped to arrow of time at the level of zero energy states.

Unitarity is not lost: it is generalized. M-matrix is the analog of thermalized S-matrix: product of hermitian square root of density matrix and the counterpart of ordinary unitary S-matrix. M-matrices in bigger picture form rows of unitary U-matrix which is something new.

In ordinary statistical mechanics and kinetic theory CP is conserved and thus T breaking implies that unitarity is lost and that evolution is irreversible.

CP breaking alone does not demonstrate arrow of time at single particle level when it is compensated by T breaking, so that the whole evolution continues being unitary and reversible.

A rigorous and general description of irreversibility implies the use of non-unitary models, as those developed by Prigogine and his group. Unitarity is recovered as special case. That general description goes beyond S-matrix (and related) descriptions.

Just a half-baked comment about knots. I believe that they are something very very deep. In TGD framework knots and braids associated with preferred 3-surfaces and possibly also 2-knots and 2-braids defined by string world sheets having braids at their ends appear naturally. This because space-time dimension is D=4.

Standard braid theory must be modified to sub-manifold braid theory. Braids reside at 3-surfaces with varying topologies and knot projection must be performed to a preferred 2-surface of M^4xCP_2. To preferred plane M^2 or sphere S^2 at light-cone boundary.

What this means from the point of view of braid theory? A typical new situation is the one in which 3-surface is locally a product of higher genus 2-surface and R so that knot strand can wind around the 2-surface: M-theorist would talk about wrapping of branes. This gives rise to what is called non-planar braid diagrams for which projection to plane produces non-standard crossings. How to cope with this kind of situation?

The answer to the question emerged as Ulla sent me a link to an article telling about algebraic knots. The introduction of the self intersection of knot -virtual crossing- besides the usual crossing below or above can be applied to non-planar braids appearing in sub-manifold braid theory. Virtual crossing combined with the algebraization of the basic moves for braids leads to completely new and very general mathematical concepts such as kei, quandle, rack, and biquandle applying to other mathematical structures.

What makes this interesting to me is that all generalized Feynman diagrams are reduced to sub-manifold braid diagrams at microscopic level by bosonic emergence (bosons as pairs of fermionic wormhole throats). Three-vertices appear only for entire braids and are purely topological whereas braid strands carrying quantum numbers are just re-distributed in vertices. No 3-vertices at the really microscopic level! This is an additional nail to the coffin of divergences in TGD Universe.

By projecting the braid strands of generalized Feynman diagrams to preferred plane M^2, one obtains a unified description of non-planar Feynman diagrams and braid diagrams. The obvious conjecture is that Feynman amplitudes are like knot invariants constructible by gradually reducing non-planar Feynman diagrams to planar ones after which already existing twistorial machinery applies.

Matti, some of us have known about this non planar braid issue for many years, including the importance of working with twistorial geometry. You should read some more of the recent M theory papers.

Kea, links as proof for your statement. please.

Matti,

I borrow this comment into my blog. Thx.

Dear Kea,

perhaps it would be good for you to follow what I have been doing during last seven years before representing preceptive comments. I recommend my blog and links there for updating your knowledge. I have written several chapters about twistors in TGD and the role of braids in TGD. For twistors see this. For braids see this.

Non-planar braids emerge naturally when you have a dynamical sub-manifold geometry. As far as I know, branes are the only thing even vaguely resembling this kind of situation. Dimensions are however usually wrong to give anything interesting from the point of view of braids and braids do not emerge naturally as they do in TGD framework. I have also the feeling that Witten is working with classical knots rather than algebraic knots. It seems that it is you have forgotten to read (recent) M theory papers;-).

It is pretty clear that you understand very, very little about emergent categorical geometry.

And you, Kea,is very,very bad at explaining what you do. You are working ‘in the dark’ and cannot even accept it.

I mean, what you do is very interesting, if only the foundations would be known. To me, as an complete imbecille, and analphabet, the whole thing seems floating in some undefined frame, and that makes it so very difficult to use.

Ulla, I do not write for people who are untrained in physics and mathematics, and I do not believe quantum gravity belongs to people who insist on working independently of the profession, which is why I have spent most of my life working with professionals. It is too large a subject to be claimed by any individual ‘crackpot’.

Kea,

I guess you have exactly the same problem as Matti. Not even trained physicists understand you. So, why this?

Quantum gravity is nobodys property, also. I do not have the ambition to solve that, only to understand what eg. you are doing. Why must the whole cosmology be redone? Why do you talk of fairy fields and still do your research on dark matter? And claim DM is only neutrinos? And exactly where are your braids in the cosmology? These are not impossible questions to answer even to a person outside the field. The floating condition must be fixed if you want citations.

Dear Kea,

it seems that we both understand very, very little about emergent categorical geometry;-). I admit this without a slightest feeling of shame but you do not;-).

Speaking seriously, I sense your deep frustration which leads to aggressive behaviors. For few years ago I wrote a recommendation letter for you (dangerous business but I took the risk and emphasized your passionate attitude). My hope was that an environment like Oxford would help you to realize that you must learn certain basics. Seems that I was wrong. Empty buzz words like emergent categorical geometry do not take us anywhere.

Plenty of people (ie. men) have written me ‘recommendation letters’ without having the foggiest idea about my research. Just like plenty of people ‘listen’ to my seminars and read my papers without being impressed, only to have the same idea themselves some years later. I know all this, and I am very, very, very far from impressed by anybody. There are no women in this business at all, and that is because I am the only woman stupid enough to put myself through an entire lifetime of abuse, condescension, bullying, back stabbing, starvation, theft and so on.

And I certainly didn’t need to go to Oxford to learn about academic professionalism. On the contrary, I was shocked by the LACK of professionalism. I have spent an entire lifetime at first class research institutions.

Well, Kea, it is your life. I have tried to help you, but you are a wildcat. Certainly a genious wildcat.

@ Juan Ramon

“Well, I asked you for specific references, but I understand that you cannot cite even one, since these “plenty of references” are top-secret and you would kill every reader of this blog after.”

References are NOT top secret. Type in “fractional dynamics, Prigogine” in Google and you get 334,000 entries. Type in “fractional dynamics” and you get about 7 millions entries.

Names like Tarasov, Zaslavsky, West, Grigolini, Metzler, Laskin, Herrman and others were or are involved in developing fractional dynamics following in Prigogine’s path. And some researchers worked closely with Prigogine himself.

But, considering your reply above, it is quite clear to me that you have already made up your mind and are not willing to accept an opposing viewpoint.

Ervin

I see that my irony was too subtle…

I type “fractional dynamics, Prigogine” as you suggest

http://scholar.google.es/scholar?q=fractional+dynamics%2C+Prigogine

and I do obtain 9,450 academic references. Analyzing the references we can see that:

– The first appears because Prigogine is EDITOR of the journal

– Second is unrelated.

– Third appears because cites Nicolis and Prigogine work of 77 on self-organization. (Unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory).

– Fourth unrelated.

– Fiveth appears because cites about Prigogine-Flory-Patterson theory of liquid mixtures (Unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory).

And so on.

I have works of West and Grigolini and are unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory. I have a copy of Tarasov book on fractional dynamics and he cites Prigogine only once and it is the ancient book with Nicolis on self-organization (unrelated to Prigogine LPS theory).

I also know the work of Hermann and Prigogine, but this was early 60s work, completely unrelated to Prigogine LPs theory.

I have above 30 papers by Prigogine and several monographs. And in none he cites, or references “fractional dynamics” or similar. Neither he references works by any of the authors that you cite.

My impression is that your research link between Prigogine theory and fractal dynamics does not exist (otherwise you could give us one or two relevant references in the first reply). And that you seem to confound Prigogine early work on chaos and fractals with his last works in LPS (somewhat related but not identical to).

Have a nice day.

You are entirely missing the point.

Prigogine’s work is NOT DIRECTLY related to fractional dynamics and/or fractal operators which barely existed at the time he developed his LPS model. These are development efforts that FOLLOWED his works and philosophy on the dynamics of complex systems and non-equilibrium statistical physics, whether you like it or not.

I am not willing to continue a conversation that simply leads nowhere.

I think that I already answered that and I did with very specific comments and with some references, unlike you…