How about an Electroweak star?

" wrote:

On Jan 26, 10:00 pm, Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:02 am, " wrote:

Quite all right; I suppose I could have looked at the paper, too.

I had thought that baryon number was conserved by the electroweak
force; but apparently not. I looked at the paper on which these
announcements were based (http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0520) and it
states that electroweak symmetry-breaking can violate baryon number
conservation, converting quarks to leptons, but under ordinary
conditions this is highly suppressed.

Baryon number conservation can be violated under the extreme
conditions cited but (baryon number minus lepton number) is conserved.

Yes, B-L is conserved in every theory we know of. What would a
universe where B != L look like?

Protons would decay much more easily; the Universe might never have
formed galaxies.

Hell, it might never have formed *stars*.

(I was surprised Uncle Al considered baryon number conservation as
absolute.)

Well, it's stated many places, including the Wikipedia article, that
baryon number is absolutely conserved in the standard model.

Not quite, it's *nearly* conserved.

"The baryon number is nearly conserved in all the interactions of
the Standard Model. 'Conserved' means that the sum of the baryon
number of all incoming particles is the same as the sum of the baryon
numbers of all particles resulting from the reaction. An exception is
the chiral anomaly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly

Is this
really a commonly-accepted conclusion of electroweak theory, and not
just someone's speculation?

Fairly well-accepted; it's one (conditional) explanation of the
nonzero mass of neutrinos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E2%88%92L

"If B - L exists as a symmetry, it has to be spontaneously broken to
give the neutrinos a nonzero mass if we assume the seesaw mechanism."

Both quantized gravitation and SUSY are revealed to be increasingly
(fatally) untenable. We seek an initial symmetry-breaking that allows
rigorously derived mathematics to be empirically wrong. The only
candidate sufficient while being consistent with all prior physics is
parity. Parity-breaking is everywhere inside physics and it always
requires a special case.

Uncle Al *testably* proposes that the many, many parity-derived
exceptions are in fact the rule. The vacuum has a remnant chiral
background only in the massed sector from the Big Bang (origin) an
comsic inflation (dilution to comtemporary trace value). Strong
interactions are the exceptions whereon parity violation becomes a
degeneracy (e.g., Newtonian physics c=infinity, G=G, h=0 vs.
Relativity with c=c, G=G, h=0 and QFT with c=c, G=0, h=h). Four
experiments:

1) Parity Eotvos experiment. Do left and right shoes vacuum free
fall identically?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.png

2) Parity calorimetry experment. Do opposite parity single crystal
crystal atomic mass distributions exhibit the same /_\H(fusion) vs.
time of day?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

3) Parity balls experiment. Do solid single crystal spheres of
enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quartz - niobium
plated and Meisser-effect levitated in hard vacuum - spontaneously
spin in opposite directions vs. time of day? Use P3(1) versus P3(2)
gamma-glycine if you like.

4) Do vacuum gas phase opposite parity single molecule rotors show
divergent spin state populations versus time of day in FT microwave
spectroscopy? Do two rotors on a rigid axle show spin divergence,
homochiral vs. meso-pairing?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/twistene.png
twistbrendane, with one twistane two-carbon bridge contracted to a
one-carbon bridge, is also good.

A bootlegged weekend in an FT micowave spectrometer at 45 degees
latitude with 10 millgrams of begged academic lab twistane could
overturn physics with a footnote, as with Yang and Lee. How big must
a pile of independent experiments get before physics smells its own
stink?

Somebody should look.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

On Jan 27, 11:53*am, PD wrote:

And how does a quark turn into a lepton? Is that in the Standard Model?

It comes from one of several *extensions* to the Standard Model.
Examples include the now defunct SU(5) supergroup, technicolor, and
some supersymmetry variants.

Please read the preceding posts. It _is_ Standard Model, albeit many
people (including me, until now) have never heard of it.

Andrew Usher

On Jan 27, 6:38*am, " wrote:

* Baryon number conservation can be violated under the extreme
conditions cited but (baryon number minus lepton number) is conserved..

Yes, B-L is conserved in every theory we know of. What would a
universe where B != L look like?

Protons would decay much more easily; the Universe might never have
formed galaxies.

Hell, it might never have formed *stars*.

I meant: a world with the same physical laws today that was _created_
with nonzero B-L.

* (I was surprised Uncle Al considered baryon number conservation as
absolute.)

Well, it's stated many places, including the Wikipedia article, that
baryon number is absolutely conserved in the standard model.

* Not quite, it's *nearly* conserved.

I was looking at the article 'Proton decay', which does assert the
conservation is absolute. Perhaps someone should add the standard-
model proton decay.

* Fairly well-accepted; it's one (conditional) explanation of the
nonzero mass of neutrinos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E2%88%92L

* "If B - L exists as a symmetry, it has to be spontaneously broken to
give the neutrinos a nonzero mass if we assume the seesaw mechanism."

Actually, the 'seesaw mechanism' is beyond the SM (see that article).
B-L conservation is absolute in the standard model and most GUT/SUSY
models (as far as I can figure out from reading).

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:53 am, PD wrote:

And how does a quark turn into a lepton? Is that in the Standard Model?
It comes from one of several *extensions* to the Standard Model.
Examples include the now defunct SU(5) supergroup, technicolor, and
some supersymmetry variants.

Please read the preceding posts. It _is_ Standard Model, albeit many
people (including me, until now) have never heard of it.

Andrew Usher

It seems the majority of us in this newsgroup have a conventional
understanding of nuclear physics circa the 1950's, but there are groups
of scientists who have a deeper understanding about it than us. Perhaps
equipped with 1970's knowledge.

It may not be as profound a divide as we see between the people equipped
with Newtonian knowledge, trying to come to terms with Einstein.
However, it shows us how difficult it is for the Newtonians to upgrade
from the 17th century to the early 20th century.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Andrew Usher wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:53 am, PD wrote:

And how does a quark turn into a lepton? Is that in the Standard Model?
It comes from one of several *extensions* to the Standard Model.
Examples include the now defunct SU(5) supergroup, technicolor, and
some supersymmetry variants.

Please read the preceding posts. It _is_ Standard Model, albeit many
people (including me, until now) have never heard of it.

Andrew Usher

It seems the majority of us in this newsgroup have a conventional
understanding of nuclear physics circa the 1950's, but there are groups of
scientists who have a deeper understanding about it than us. Perhaps
equipped with 1970's knowledge.

It may not be as profound a divide as we see between the people equipped
with Newtonian knowledge, trying to come to terms with Einstein. However,
it shows us how difficult it is for the Newtonians to upgrade from the
17th century to the early 20th century.

Yousuf Khan

Should a sane mathematician come to terms with an incompetent egomaniac?
Oh wait... a bigot like you is not qualified to answer that.
Take your head out of your arse and learn something, grinagog:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...r_children.htm

On Jan 28, 9:24*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:

It seems the majority of us in this newsgroup have a conventional
understanding of nuclear physics circa the 1950's, but there are groups
of scientists who have a deeper understanding about it than us. Perhaps
equipped with 1970's knowledge.

Yeah, it's strange that this is just being investigated now.

I wonder if we'll ever detect one of these stars. The trouble is, the
energy of electroweak burning will be virtually all emitted as
neutrinos, and thus undetectable. The photon luminosity should be
hardly greater than a normal neutron star. So I guess the sign of an
electroweak star will be an object that clearly can't be a black hole
but is above the normal neutron-star limit, which is probably around
2.2 Msun.

Andrew Usher