What we might be looking at is e+,e-_ collisions with selectron production that can decay

into gravitinos, The threshold behavior of selectron production for the case (m~eR;m_) =
(150 GeV; 100 GeV) for both e+,e- and e+e_ modes works well within the energy band
here..

Once produced, selectrons must decay. In supergravity frameworks, they typically decay
via
As mentioned, in theories with low-energy supersymmetry breaking, selectrons may
decay to gravitinos. These particles are interesting in that they behave like gravitons and
have charge and mass. In supergravity models, which we will focus on here, the

selectron signal is

Their signal in either high energy beam production or out in nature is two like-sign
electrons, each with energy bounded by
This is what the selectrons would appear as. Now if these decay into gravitinos it could
be the gravitinos that perform local brane lensing. In that case we’d be after modeling
them. They only have spin 3/2.

Supersymmetric partners
Standard model particle Supersymmetric partner
Name Type Spin Name Type Spin
Electron fermion 1/2 Selectron boson 0
Neutrino fermion 1/2 Sneutrino boson 0
Quark fermion 1/2 Squark boson 0
Photon boson 1 Photino fermion 1/2
W boson 1 Wino fermion 1/2
Z boson 1 Zino fermion 1/2
Gluon boson 1 Gluino fermion 1/2
Higgs boson 0 Higgsino fermion 1/2
Graviton boson 2 Gravitino fermion 3/2

In the field quantum -- the graviton -- needs to have a spin of 2. (It can also be shown that
any force which is mediated by a boson whose spin is an odd number must be repulsive
between like particles, but gravity is an attractive force.). We are after here the opposite
of the graviton. It could have odd number spin. Given the larger group of
supersymmetry operations, which contains the Poincaré group, it's only natural to ask
what happens when that is regarded as a local symmetry group. The answer is that you
get a really strange field whose quantum is a particle with a spin of 3/2. Since the
Poincaré group is a subgroup, you get the gravitational field and the graviton too. And
the graviton and that spin-3/2 particle are supersymmetric partners, so the latter has to be
called a gravitino. The theory of the graviton and the gravitino that results is called
supergravity.

Gravitinos are the only particles that can be said to come up "naturally" with a spin of
3/2. That makes them fermions, so they are also the only quanta of a symmetry-induced
field that aren't bosons. Normally it is assumed because they obey the Pauli exclusion
principle, they do not combine to be force carriers. However, in our case I do not believe
they have to combine to produce brane lensing. They simply need to impart their charge
and energy into local Israel condition modifications.
The superstring theory is based on the introduction of a world sheet super-symmetry that
relates the space-time coordinates Xμ(ι,τ) to a fermionic partners ψμ (ι,τ), which are two-
component world sheet spinors. The action S consists of three parts:

S = S0 + S1 + S2 ----------

In that equation

if the transformation is local (i.e., it is a function of τ and σ, it introduces an extra term,

which is cancelled by S1

where the two-dimensional supergravity "gravitino" is related to the local supersymmetry

transformation by the formula This cancellation scheme in turn gives another extra
term, which is finally cancelled by S2 –

But we could have a case where there is no direct cancellation scheme. In this case they
would be eventually cancelled out by shedding their charge and energy into brane
lensing. The result is the same with no long existing supersymmetry partners. But in this
case they become a force carrier indirectly. Their existence time span on our 3-brane
would be governed by how long range brane lensing effects are. For that aspect the brane
tension and the two cosmological constants are inter-related as

The Friedmann equation gives the Hubble parameter to Δ,, m, m, the scale factor a and
the matter
energy density p, on the brane:

In the matter dominated era the brane is dominated by dust, obeying the
continuity equation

We already have the other equations for how the weyl fluid behaves and the electrical
aspect of it that effects the above. If we set the Hubble parameter at say just beyond the
orbit of Mars we could use the above to model all this. I suspect we will find that the
gravitinos are short lived and provide their brane lensing within near proximity to the Sun
itself. I believe the range of the weyl fluid change here is the key.

Moreover, in the equation of state

can be a variable

Where

Is defined in the bulk. We could then possibly consider this along the lines of Big
Crunch to Big Bang, we the Sun fitting the singularity point. As such, the branes are
given by an embedding

with a big crunch singularity in

From the modified Friedmann equation we shall deduce that the limit

exists and without loss of generality we shall suppose

We then shall define a brane

The two branes can be pasted together to yield at least a Lipschitz

hypersurface in If this hypersurface is of class then we

shall speak of a smooth transition from big crunch to big bang which in our
case is from center of Sun to transition outward. If the transition is smooth,
namely, the quantity

has to be a smooth and even function in the variable

in order that the transition flow is smooth, and a smooth and even function in
the variable

if the joint embedding is to represent a smooth hypersurface in

The metric in the bulk space N is given by

Where is the metric of an n- dimensional space form S0, the radial

coordinate r is assumed to be negative, is defined by

where m > 0 and Λ ≤ 0 are constants, and κ = −1, 0, 1 is the curvature of

S0. We note that we assume that there is a black hole region or center in our
case, if Λ = 0, then we have to suppose ˜κ = 1.

The relation between geometry and physics is governed by the Israel junction
conditions

Where is the second fundamental form of N, H= . the

stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid with an equation of state

And the tension of the brane which we can show to be modified in this
smooth
Transition by a yet to be determined amount.

Which the limit needs in our case to be set at just beyond the orbital distance
of Mars.
In all other cases it would not be constant.

Then N is ARW with respect to the future, if the metric is close to the
Robertson-Walker metric

Near the center of the Sun

The Israel junction condition

With

Assuming the stress energy tensor to be that of a perfect fluid

satisfying an equation of state

We obtain

point out that this choice of τ implies the relation

since

where we use a dot or a prime to indicate differentiation with respect to τ

unless otherwise specified.

Since the time function in ARW spaces or in spaces of class (B) has a finite
future range with the assumed limits above we can deduce that all the brane
lensing takes place within the Sun itself and the effect is long range enough
to cover a good percentage of our solar system. This also eliminates the
need to consider these gravitinos as anything but short lived as required of
most supergravity theory. This would also be good for our eventual field
generator purposes since they would remain a very finite distance from the
origin plasma field.
I have given all this as a way we could treat this whole field to get a better
handle on it as far as modeling goes. We have to change the limit from
infinity to that observational data gives us which actually requires a lot more
experimental evidence to set an actual range on it. Right now we will just
assume it drops off a bit beyond the orbit of Mars. The reason for this round
about method utilizing modeling out of cosmology is that this effect does not
seem to follow a general r^2 rule, but within the limits of our ability to
measure any change in C it does seem to remain smooth or constant out to
that orbital distance.

The model here is one used to show brane transition from singularity to Big
Bang. In essence, the planck point inside our Sun forms the singularity point
and the brane is the field itself in this case formed by the gravitinos deep
within the Sun’s confined plasma field. The model can be found at
http://www.intlpress.com/ATMP/archive/2004/ATMP_8_319_343.pdf and is
about as good a starting point as we can get here unless Fernando has any
other to suggest. Almost all the math is taken from it, except the first part
about supersymmetry and gravitinos.

The reason I think we can assume the gravitinos stay confined is based upon
supersymmetry requirements. This being the case we should be able with
confined high energy plasma to reproduce this effect both in lab and
eventually on a space craft. We need a way to alter the field range still. But
this does possibly provide us with a way to generate a usable field.

The question here is one of energy level. The plasma generating unit has to
be high energy on the order of at least that found in the Sun. This leaves us
with either Atomic Fusion or matter/anti-matter reactions. I might add that
the input mass for fusion would require acceleration to develop even higher
energy output.

And interesting side line laugh here or blast from the past is: Yes, Scotty, you
cannot mix matter/anti-matter cold considering acceleration of both to
achieve higher energy combination rather implies heating them up. More or
less proof that science fiction has a way of predicting the future.

Our drive then becomes somewhat of a combination of particle accelerator

and fusion reactor. Very high field strength superconductor magnetic
containment systems would be required. We might get an advantage here if
the gravitinos do not full shed their energy in brane lensing they decay into
free electrons which would aid a MHD based power generation setup. I also
believe we could harness the plasma, especially M/AM by products for thrust
at the same time. Kind of an all in one drive system that generates the FL
field and provides power and thrust.