Online: | |

Visits: | |

Stories: |

Story Views | |

Now: | |

Last Hour: | |

Last 24 Hours: | |

Total: |

Friday, April 21, 2017 0:49

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

The twistor lift of TGD forces to introduce the analog of Kähler form for M^{4}, call it J. J is covariantly constant self-dual 2-form, whose square is the negative of the metric. There is a moduli space for these Kähler forms parametrized by the direction of the constant and parallel magnetic and electric fields defined by J. J partially characterizes the causal diamond (CD): hence the notation J(CD) and can be interpreted as a geometric correlate for fixing quantization axis of energy (rest system) and spin.

Kähler form defines classical U(1) gauge field and there are excellent reasons to expect that it gives rise to U(1) quanta coupling to the difference of B-L of baryon and lepton numbers. There is coupling strength α_{1} associated with this interaction. The first guess that it could be just Kähler coupling strength leads to unphysical predictions: α_{1} must be much smaller. Here I do not yet completely understand the situation. One can however check whether the simplest guess is consistent with the empirical inputs from CP breaking of mesons and antimatter asymmetry. This turns out to be the case.

One must specify the value of α_{1} and the scaling factor transforming J(CD) having dimension length squared as tensor square root of metric to dimensionless U(1) gauge field F= J(CD)/S. This leads to a series of questions.

How to fix the scaling parameter S?

- The scaling parameter relating J(CD) and F is fixed by flux quantization implying that the flux of J(CD) is the area of sphere S
^{2}for the twistor space M^{4}× S^{2}. The gauge field is obtained as F=J/S, where S= 4π R^{2}(S^{2}) is the area of S^{2}. - Note that in Minkowski coordinates the length dimension is by convention shifted from the metric to linear Minkowski coordinates so that the magnetic field B
_{1}has dimension of inverse length squared and corresponds to J(CD)/SL^{2}, where L is naturally be taken to the size scale of CD defining the unit length in Minkowski coordinates. The U(1) magnetic flux would the signed area using L^{2}as a unit.

How R(S^{2}) relates to Planck length l_{P}? l_{P} is either the radius l_{P}=R of the twistor sphere S^{2} of the twistor space T=M^{4}× S^{2} or the circumference l_{P}= 2π R(S^{2}) of the geodesic of S^{2}. Circumference is a more natural identification since it can be measured in Riemann geometry whereas the operational definition of radius requires imbedding to Euclidian 3-space.

How can one fix the value of U(1) coupling strength α_{1}? As a guideline one can use CP breaking in K and B meson systems and the parameter characterizing matter-antimatter symmetry.

- The recent experimental estimate for so called Jarlskog parameter characterizing the CP breaking in kaon system is J≈ 3.0× 10
^{-5}. For B mesons CP breading is about 50 times larger than for kaons and it is clear that Jarlskog invariant does not distinguish between different meson so that it is better to talk about orders of magnitude only. - Matter-antimatter asymmetry is characterized by the number r=n
_{B}/n_{γ}∼ 10^{-10}telling the ratio of the baryon density after annihilation to the original density. There is about one baryon 10 billion photons of CMB left in the recent Universe.

Consider now various options for the identification of α_{1}.

- Since the action is obtained by dimensional reduction from the 6-D Kähler action, one could argue α
_{1}= α_{K}. This proposal leads to unphysical predictions in atomic physics since neutron-electron U(1) interaction scales up binding energies dramatically. - One can also consider the guess α
_{1}=R^{2}(S^{2})/R^{2}(CP_{2}), the ratio of the areas of twistor spheres of T(M^{4}) and T(CP_{2}). There are two options corresponding to l_{P}= R(S^{2}) and l_{P}=2π R(S^{2}).- For l
_{P}=R one would have α_{1}= 2^{-24}≈ 6× 10^{-8}. For l_{P}=R α_{1}is more than one order of magnitude smaller than the parameter r≈ 10^{-10}above. The CP breaking parameter for K and B system could be proportional to g_{1}=(4πα_{1})^{1/2}≈ 2× 10^{-4}and by order of magnitude larger than the Jarlskog parameter J≈ 3.0× 10^{-5}for K system. - For l
_{P}= 2π R(S^{2}) one would have α_{1}= R^{2}(S^{2})/R^{2}(CP_{2}) = (1/4π^{2})× l_{P}^{2}≈ 3.8× 10^{-11}, which is of the same order of magnitude as the parameter r≈ 10^{-10}characterizing matter-antimatter asymmetry. For g_{1}=(4π× α_{1})^{1/2}one would obtain g_{1}≈ 6.9× 10^{-5}to be compared with J≈ 3.0× 10^{-5}for K system. This is the more plausible option – also in the sense that it involves only length scales quantities determined by the Riemann geometry of the twistor space.

- For l
- There is an intriguing numerical co-incidence involved. h
_{eff}=hbar_{gr}=GMm/v_{0}in solar system corresponds to v_{0}≈ 2^{-11}and appears as coupling constant parameter in the perturbative theory obtained in this manner. What is intriguing that one has α_{1}=v_{0}^{2}/4π^{2}in this case. Where does the troublesome factor (1/2π)^{2}come from? Could the p-adic coupling constant evolutions for v_{0}and α_{1}correspond to each other and could they actually be one and the same thing? Can one treat gravitational force perturbatively either in terms of gravitational field or J(CD)? Is there somekind of duality involved?

See the new chapter Breaking of CP, P, and T in cosmological scales in TGD Universe of “Physics in Many-Sheeted Space-time” or the article with the same title.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Source: http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2017/04/getting-even-more-quantitative-about-cp.html