# Of particular interest in our study of the universe is the existence of Great Walls and the Great Attractor.

Thought to be extremely long, yet thin, alignments of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters, assembled by large quantities of dark matter, it is thought that they might represent a geometric structure congruent with the infalling strings from the superverse into the black hole we are within. These also represent topological defects left over from the early universe, early connections still maintained, perhaps reflected in ancient black hole wormhole tunnel entanglements that still link distant parts of the universe which were once adjacent (and still are in other layers.) This reflects the universe's existence as a quantum particle, subject to quantum nonlocality. They expand in length as the universe expands, but remain narrow in width and height. The parallel string-like timelines of the Hopf Fibration universe we are within may also represent different states of the Universal string we reside upon (time proceeds lengthwise down the string and space-time is any given point upon it.) The different timeline fibers of the Hopf Fibration are actually all one universal string that loops around from big bounce to big bounce (see image.) This is also reflected in the one dimensional mobius strip, which is our universe on its very basic level, expanding to torus and later to hypersphere (the 4th dimension being time.) The twist of the mobius and the center of the torus and the hypersphere are where the big bang occurred. Since time is the fourth dimension of the hypersphere or glome, we exist on its three dimensional surface, all equidistant from the center, which is where the big bang and bounces occur. It's quite interesting and no accident that the volume of a torus and the surface area of the hypersphere are the same, just like how the Hopf Fibration looks very much like a torus. This should give you an idea of why our universe can exist in all these shapes all across its timelines (remember that all times exist simultaneously.) As mentioned in Origin 12, this is the region which flips from black hole to white hole as polarity reverses between the different members of the quadverse and we are either expanding or contracting, and either accumulating dark energy or dark matter in a higher ratio to the other. The reason the Great Wall and Great Attractor were assembled so quickly is precisely because the universe is cyclical and information for their assemblage isn't lost, but maintained in the cosmic DNA of the universe, which was imparted upon it by the superverse. This is why it is a fractal representative of the superverse and the omniverse, as this cosmic DNA gets passed down to all baby universes/quadverses. The other reason why this happened with such rapidity is that dark matter, only influenced by gravity, can proceed at faster than c speeds, and therefore experiences negative time (it is actually matter from the antiverse, just like our matter is their dark matter and experiences negative time there). The transfer and conversion of matter to dark matter in both directions is what ultimately causes the balanced cyclical nature of the quadverse, as this transference occurs between the universe and the antiverse, and the mirrorverse and the antimirroverse. This brings to bear the Aharanov Effect, and the future postselects the past on the macro level, just as is the case on the quantum level. Bolstering this idea is the recent possible discovery of the sterile neutrino, which also experiences time in both directions, because the only force which impacts it is gravity, which exists in all dimensions, in a looping form (just like time), unlike the other forces, which are limited strings. If, as mentioned in Origin 13, our universe evolved from 1D to 2D to 3D and will one day reach 4D, the question then becomes what will be the nature of this fourth dimension? Will it be an internally manufactured dimension, like the other three spatial dimensions, or will it be hyperspace, from the omniverse? I believe it will be the latter. Why? Because 3D space is stable, and once our universe expands to the extent needed to create the fourth dimension, it will be so cold that it will reach the below absolute zero temps needed to interface with the omniverse. This, in turn, will cause explosive inflation (inflation phase 2), which will expand the universe within the omniverse, until it reaches the Cauchy Horizon of the black hole we reside within, and then it will bounce back just as explosively, and contraction will begin. In inflation phase 2, no alternate timelines will be manufactured, unlike the first inflation, because when the universe was 2D there was no gravitation. In 3D space, we have gravitation, so that will keep new emergent timelines from forming. The situation will be the reverse for the antiverse; when we go from 3D to 4D space and reach inflation phase 2, hit the Cauchy Horizon and contract towards our next big bounce with converging timelines, it will be big bouncing and reaching inflation phase 1 and creating the parallel timelines in 2+1, just prior to phase transitioning to 3+1

(the "dark energy" era.) As it relates to the individual members of the quadverse, both the universe and the mirrorverse are always in sync, while the antiverse and antimirrorverse are always in sync also. The reason for this 4 way balance is because our universe was generated with a small imbalance favoring matter over antimatter and regular matter over mirror matter, the other components, favor similar imbalances, but going in the other direction. The relationship between gravity and time is quite interesting. Besides both looping around and maintaining the cyclical and balanced nature of the universe and quadverse (and omniverse, for that matter.) Not only is gravity/dark energy responsible for the creation of the third dimension over entropy/time..... the rate of time also responds to the presence of gravitation. During the 1D and 2D phases of the universe, when gravity waves do not exist, time proceeds very slowly (maybe remains static), until the universe cools sufficiently to phase transition to 3D, inflation occurs with the polarity flip at the central black hole / white hole and the dark energy to dark matter ratio increases, parallel time lines are created and gravity emerges. In 3D and 4D time proceeds much more rapidly, since gravity is now present (but separated among the various parallel timelines) and the universe expands ever more quickly in the dark energy era and even faster with explosive expansion (inflation phase 2) during the phase change to 4D space. At this time, to an outside observer, the universe would finally become visible as a 1 dimensional line expanding from the center towards the event horizon of the parent black hole from both ends. Before this happened, it was only a point particle (although, since all times exist together, perhaps it will always appear as a line frozen in the imaginary time dimension of the omniverse-all the parallel timelines will be superimposed upon each other, in the fashion of quantum superposition-- as will the other members of the quadverse be visible as single dimensional lines.) Besides the black hole and superverse properties mentioned in Origin 13 which impact the physical properties of the baby universe/quadverse, the actual size of the parent black hole and thus the width of the Cauchy Horizon, will also impact length of each oscillation. Time proceeds even more quickly when the universe rebounds off the Cauchy Horizon from the parent black hole (the macro version of the strong force), as the gravitational waves become much more concentrated as they bounce off of it and time proceeds rapidly as the universe starts to contract, the polarity at the center black hole / white hole flips, the dark matter to dark energy ratio increases, until finally the phase transition back to 3D occurs as the universe heats up and keeps contracting with more dark matter, the time lines merge and gravity increases even more with deflation until we reach the 1D/2D wall and time slows to a crawl (or stops), gravity disappears and the universe big bounces at 10 planck lengths and the cycle starts all over again. In the mirrorverse, this is synchronized, while it occurs in reverse in the antiverse and the antimirrorverse, where time itself is reversed. Note also, that gravity/time/dark matter/dark energy is conserved in the quadverse (and the omniverse in general) as an increase in rate or quantity in one component results in a decrease in one of the other components of the quadverse (actually it's 2 vs 2) since, after all, the universe and mirrorverse experience time in reverse from the antiverse and the antimirrorverse. The structure of this quadverse in the omniverse isn't actually four lines, it's a double double helix (thus my cosmic DNA reference earlier-- yet another example of fractality!) Gravity and EM create the twists and turns to produce this structure. Consider the four dimensions to each be base pairs of the cosmic DNA (for a total of 8 D, 6+2), connected to each other through the central black hole / white hole which keeps reversing polarity at different phases of the cycle. These wormhole connections are a cosmic fractal representation of the chemical bonds between the base pairs of the DNA double helix..... we actually have two double helixes, with the universe and mirrorverse in sync, as is the antiverse and the antimirrorverse, which all exist within the cosmically fractal 4+1 omniverse (this is exactly why our universe reaches a limit of 4+1 in its own dimensions before starting to contract.) Hey that new science discovery might be technicolor! I love technicolor, so needless to say Im enthusiastic about this if it proves to be correct. I remember mentioning it way back in Origin 1 last year, as I hoped it would replace Higgs.... hopefully, this is the first step towards supplanting the Higgs Boson.

well chapter one was written about a year ago and in it I mention a theory called technicolor, from which I theorized that our dimensions and mass emerged from... instead of the Higgs Boson which is what conventional physics has assumed.... I just think technicolor makes much more sense and is a much more elegant theory, and it is a structure of reality based on color theory well basically I analogized the three primary colors to the three spatial dimensions and time as the background.... and then you can also construct three negative spatial dimensions which are the represented by the complementary primary colors and a similar complementary time dimension Red Green Blue RGB are the additive primaries the complementary subtractive primaries are cyan magenta and yellow black and white represent time and complementary time. The complementary dimensions make up the antiverse and the antimirrorverse. it just occurred to me how three dimensions of space are so similar to the three primary colors and how time could be similar to the background upon which it was built. Note that in QCD, color charge effect becomes nil outside of the particle..... thus, anyone in the superverse would not see our dimensions (they have their own dimensions that arise from their own cosmic color charge), but on the inside, we are subject to them and perceive them as dimensions. well there are two possibilities one is just two dimensions which would be a particle and its complementary if youve seen a color wheel, you know its the color opposite to it on the color wheel the other possibility is 3 particles, in which case you have the primary colors each color represents one third of the charge of the particle the colors correspond to color charge you have to imagine it as a rubber band.... within the rubber band they can move freely but once they reach the edge and start trying to get out, the rubber band becomes tight and pushes them back in it is how I also picture the universe.... with gravity taking the place of this force on a universal scale and the dimensions taking the place of color charge. Once the universe expands to the cauchy horizon, it "bounces back." Notice the fractal representation of quantum lattice and spin networks-- this shows that cosmic DNA replicates itself in the baby universe and thus they are made in the image of the omniverse itself. This also works with Calabi-Yau manifolds, which are six dimensional, as each manifold would be constructed of the three additive primary spatial dimensions plus the three subtractive primary spatial dimensions.

This is the first step towards a gravity-strong force unification, to match electro-weak unification.... so instead of 4 forces, we'd have 2 x 2 (just like the quadverse arrangement..... more fractality!) Universes with additional dimensions can be created based on this framework by adding in resonances or higher and lower energy versions that exist on higher or lower energy levels.... like the electron, muon and tauon, for example. Universes with the same dimensions, like parallel timeverses and mirrorverses can also exist on different energy levels. The renowned Kip Thorne has created a solution to the geometry of two colliding black holes which looks suspiciously like the Hopf Fibration and E8, as well as the toroidal model of the

universe. It is therefore theorized that baby universes can be created when two black holes collide and merge, resulting in a warping of space and time that creates the shape of the baby universe that lies within. The physical properties and laws of the universe are determined by the spin, charge, cosmic color charge (aka dimensions, which may also arise from infalling quark gluon plasma and cosmic strings) and other properties of the parent black holes as well as the results of the collision. Both parent black holes provide cosmic DNA which goes into producing the baby universe. The fractal representation of this also resembles the structure of large galaxies, therefore it is also theorized that these baby universes are produced at the core of these galaxies where the supermassive blackhole exists, during the quasar active stage of its life cycle. As mentioned above, this also shows how quantum lattice and spin networks are replicated throughout the omniverse, as cosmic DNA and gravity mold not only the structures within universes, but the omniverse itself. The interesting thing about the quantum mirror analogy is it reminds me of the "Funhouse Mirrors" analogy I used in describing parallel time universes-- basically, they are multiple images of the same thing, distorted by various gravitational effects. But they are really reflections of the same universe in superpositional states with itself. Physicists discover new way to visualize warped space and time April 11th, 2011 in Physics / General Physics Enlarge

Two doughnut-shaped vortexes ejected by a pulsating black hole. Also shown at the center are two red and two blue vortex lines attached to the hole, which will be ejected as a third doughnutshaped vortex in the next pulsation. Credit: The Caltech/Cornell SXS Collaboration (PhysOrg.com) -- When black holes slam into each other, the surrounding space and time surge and undulate like a heaving sea during a storm. This warping of space and time is so complicated that physicists haven't been able to understand the details of what goes on -- until now. "We've found ways to visualize warped space-time like never before," says Kip Thorne, Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus, at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). By combining theory with computer simulations, Thorne and his colleagues at Caltech, Cornell University, and the National Institute for Theoretical Physics in South Africa have developed conceptual tools they've dubbed tendex lines and vortex lines. Using these tools, they have discovered that black-hole collisions can produce vortex lines that form a doughnut-shaped pattern, flying away from the merged black hole like smoke rings. The researchers also found that these bundles of vortex lines—called vortexes—can spiral out of the black hole like water from a rotating sprinkler. The researchers explain tendex and vortex lines—and their implications for black holes—in a paper that's published online on April 11 in the journal Physical Review Letters.

These are two spiral-shaped vortexes (yellow) of whirling space sticking out of a black hole, and the vortex lines (red curves) that form the vortexes. Credit: The Caltech/Cornell SXS Collaboration Tendex and vortex lines describe the gravitational forces caused by warped space-time. They are analogous to the electric and magnetic field lines that describe electric and magnetic forces.

Tendex lines describe the stretching force that warped space-time exerts on everything it encounters. "Tendex lines sticking out of the moon raise the tides on the earth's oceans," says David Nichols, the Caltech graduate student who coined the term "tendex." The stretching force of these lines would rip apart an astronaut who falls into a black hole. Vortex lines, on the other hand, describe the twisting of space. If an astronaut's body is aligned with a vortex line, she gets wrung like a wet towel. When many tendex lines are bunched together, they create a region of strong stretching called a tendex. Similarly, a bundle of vortex lines creates a whirling region of space called a vortex. "Anything that falls into a vortex gets spun around and around," says Dr. Robert Owen of Cornell University, the lead author of the paper. Tendex and vortex lines provide a powerful new way to understand black holes, gravity, and the nature of the universe. "Using these tools, we can now make much better sense of the tremendous amount of data that's produced in our computer simulations," says Dr. Mark Scheel, a senior researcher at Caltech and leader of the team's simulation work. Using computer simulations, the researchers have discovered that two spinning black holes crashing into each other produce several vortexes and several tendexes. If the collision is headon, the merged hole ejects vortexes as doughnut-shaped regions of whirling space, and it ejects tendexes as doughnut-shaped regions of stretching. But if the black holes spiral in toward each other before merging, their vortexes and tendexes spiral out of the merged hole. In either case— doughnut or spiral—the outward-moving vortexes and tendexes become gravitational waves—the kinds of waves that the Caltech-led Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) seeks to detect. "With these tendexes and vortexes, we may be able to much more easily predict the waveforms of the gravitational waves that LIGO is searching for," says Yanbei Chen, associate professor of physics at Caltech and the leader of the team's theoretical efforts. Additionally, tendexes and vortexes have allowed the researchers to solve the mystery behind the gravitational kick of a merged black hole at the center of a galaxy. In 2007, a team at the University of Texas in Brownsville, led by Professor Manuela Campanelli, used computer simulations to discover that colliding black holes can produce a directed burst of gravitational waves that causes the merged black hole to recoil—like a rifle firing a bullet. The recoil is so strong that it can throw the merged hole out of its galaxy. But nobody understood how this directed burst of gravitational waves is produced. Now, equipped with their new tools, Thorne's team has found the answer. On one side of the black hole, the gravitational waves from the spiraling vortexes add together with the waves from the spiraling tendexes. On the other side, the vortex and tendex waves cancel each other out. The result is a burst of waves in one direction, causing the merged hole to recoil. "Though we've developed these tools for black-hole collisions, they can be applied wherever space-time is warped," says Dr. Geoffrey Lovelace, a member of the team from Cornell. "For instance, I expect that people will apply vortex and tendex lines to cosmology, to black holes ripping stars apart, and to the singularities that live inside black holes. They'll become standard tools throughout general relativity." The team is already preparing multiple follow-up papers with new results. "I've never before coauthored a paper where essentially everything is new," says Thorne, who has authored hundreds of articles. "But that's the case here." More information: Physical Review Letters paper: "Frame-dragging vortexes and tidal tendexes attached to colliding black holes: Visualizing the curvature of spacetime"

Provided by California Institute of Technology "Physicists discover new way to visualize warped space and time." April 11th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-physicists-visualize-warped-space.html

Atom and its quantum mirror image April 5, 2011 By Florian Aigner Enlarge Towards the mirror or away from the mirror? Physicists create atoms in quantum superposition states. A team of physicists experimentally produces quantum-superpositions, simply using a mirror. Standing in front of a mirror, we can easily tell apart ourselves from our mirror image. The mirror does not affect our motion in any way. For quantum particles, this is much more complicated. In a spectacular experiment in the labs of the Heidelberg University, a group of physicists from Heidelberg Unversity, together with colleagues at TU Munich and TU Vienna extended a gedanken experiment by Einstein and managed to blur the distinction between a particle and its mirror image. The results of this experiment have now been published in the journal Nature Physics. Emitted Light, Recoiling Atom When an atom emits light (i.e. a photon) into a particular direction, it recoils in the opposite direction. If the photon is measured, the motion of the atom is known too. The scientists placed atoms very closely to a mirror. In this case, there are two possible paths for any photon travelling to the observer: it could have been emitted directly into the direction of the observer, or it could have travelled into the opposite direction and then been reflected in the mirror. If there is no way of distinguishing between these two scenarios, the motion of the atom is not determined, the atom moves in a superposition of both paths. “If the distance between the atom and the mirror is very small, it is physically impossible to distinguish between these two paths,” Jiri Tomkovic, PhD student at Heidelberg explains. The particle and its mirror image cannot be clearly separated any more. The atom moves towards the mirror and away from the mirror at the same time. This may sound paradoxical and it is certainly impossible in classical phyiscs for macroscopic objects, but in quantum physics, such superpositions are a well-known phenomenon. “This uncertainty about the state of the atom does not mean that the measurement lacks precision”, Jörg Schmiedmayer (TU Vienna) emphasizes. “It is a fundamental property of quantum physics: The particle is in both of the two possible states simultaneousely, it is in a superposition.” In the experiment the two motional states of the atom – one moving towards the mirror and the other moving away from the mirror – are then combined using Bragg diffraction from a grating made of laser light. Observing interference it can be directly shown that the atom has indeed been traveling both paths at once. On Different Paths at the Same Time This is reminiscent of the famous double-slit experiment, in which a particle hits a plate with two slits and passes through both slits simultaneously, due to its wave-like quantum mechanical properties. Einstein already discussed that this can only be possible if there is no way to determine which path the particle actually chose, not even precise measurements of any tiny recoil of the double slit plate itself. As soon as there even a theoretically possible way of determining the path of the particle, the quantum superposition breaks down. “In our case, the photons play a role similar to the double slit”, Markus Oberthaler (Heidelberg University) explains.

“If the light can, in principle, tell us about the motion of the atom, then the motion is unambiguously determined. Only when it is fundamentally undecidable, the atom can be in a superposition state, combining both possibilities.” And this fundamental undecidability is guaranteed by the mirror which takes up the photon momentum. Quantum Effect – Using Only a Mirror Probing under which conditions such quantum-superpositions can be created has become very important in quantum physics. Jörg Schmiedmayer and Markus Obertaler came up with the idea for this experiment already a few years ago. “The fascinating thing about this experiment”, the scientists say, “is the possibility of creating a quantum superposition state, using only a mirror, without any external fields.” In a very simple and natural way the distinction between the particle and its mirror image becomes blurred, without complicated operations carried out by the experimenter. Provided by Vienna University of Technology http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-atom-quantum-mirror-image.html http://www.newscient...true&print=true Home |Physics& Math |Space | News |Back to article Mystery signal at Fermilab hints at 'technicolour' force * 19:46 07 April 2011 by Amanda Gefter * For similar stories, visit the Quantum World and The Large Hadron Collider Topic Guides Hints of new physics at the Tevatron (Image: Fermilab) Hints of new physics at the Tevatron (Image: Fermilab) 1 more image The physics world is buzzing with news of an unexpected sighting at Fermilab's Tevatron collider in Illinois – a glimpse of an unidentified particle that, should it prove to be real, will radically alter physicists' prevailing ideas about how nature works and how particles get their mass. The candidate particle may not belong to the standard model of particle physics, physicists' best theory for how particles and forces interact. Instead, some say it might be the first hint of a new force of nature, called technicolour, which would resolve some problems with the standard model but would leave others unanswered. The observation was made by Fermilab's CDF experiment, which smashes together protons and antiprotons 2 million times every second. The data, collected over a span of eight years, looks at collisions that produce a W boson, the carrier of the weak nuclear force, and a pair of jets of subatomic particles called quarks. Physicists predicted that the number of these events – producing a W boson and a pair of jets – would fall off as the mass of the jet pair increased. But the CDF data showed something strange (see graph): a bump in the number of events when the mass of the jet pair was about 145 GeV. Just a fluke? That suggests that the additional jet pairs were produced by a new particle weighing about 145 GeV. "We expected to see a smooth shape that decreases for increasing values of the mass," says CDF team member Pierluigi Catastini of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Instead we observe an excess of events concentrated in one region, and it seems to be a bump

– the typical signature of a particle." Intriguing as it sounds, there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the bump is simply a statistical fluke. Those odds make it a so-called three-sigma result, falling short of the gold standard for a discovery – five sigma, or a 1 in a million chance of error. "I've seen three-sigma effects come and go," says Kenneth Lane of Boston University in Massachusetts. Still, physicists are 99.9 per cent sure it is not a fluke, so they are understandably anxious to pin down the particle's identity. Most agree that the mysterious particle is not the long-sought Higgs boson, believed by many to endow particles with mass. "It's definitely not a Higgs-like object," says Rob Roser, a CDF spokesperson at Fermilab. If it were, the bump in the data would be 300 times smaller. What's more, a Higgs particle should most often decay into bottom quarks, which do not seem to make an appearance in the Fermilab data. Fifth force "There's no version of a Higgs in any model that I know of where the production rate would be this large," says Lane. "It has to be something else." And Lane is confident that he knows exactly what it is. Just over 20 years ago, Lane, along with Fermilab physicist Estia Eichten, predicted that experiments would see just such a signal. Lane and Eichten were working on a theory known as technicolour, which proposes the existence of a fifth fundamental force in addition to the four already known: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Technicolour is very similar to the strong force, which binds quarks together in the nuclei of atoms, only it operates at much higher energies. It is also able to give particles their mass – rendering the Higgs boson unnecessary. The new force comes with a zoo of new particles. Lane and Eichten's model predicted that a technicolour particle called a technirho would often decay into a W boson and another particle called a technipion. In a new paper, Lane, Eichten and Fermilab physicist Adam Martin suggest that a technipion with a mass of about 160 GeV could be the mysterious particle producing the two jets. "If this is real, I think people will give up on the idea of looking for the Higgs and begin exploring this rich world of new particles," Lane says. Future tests But if technicolour is correct, it would not be able to resolve all the questions left unanswered by the standard model. For example, physicists believe that at the high energies found in the early universe, the fundamental forces of nature were unified into a single superforce. Supersymmetry, physicists' leading contender for a theory beyond the standard model, paves a way for the forces to unite at high energies, but technicolour does not. Figuring out which theory – if either – is right means combing through more heaps of data to determine if the new signal is real. Budget constraints mean the Tevatron will shut down this year, but fortunately the CDF team, which made the find, is already "sitting on almost twice the data that went into this analysis", says Roser. "Over the coming months we will redo the analysis with double the data." Meanwhile, DZero, Fermilab's other detector, will analyse its own data to provide independent corroboration or refutation of the bump. And at CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, physicists will soon collect enough data to perform their own search. In their paper, Lane and his colleagues suggest ways to look for other techniparticles. "I haven't been sleeping very well for the past six months," says Lane, who found out about the bump long before the team went public with the result. "If this is what we think it is, it's a whole new world beyond quarks and leptons. It'll be great! And if it's not, it's not."

Journal reference: arxiv.org/abs/1104.0699 Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in ppbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen, et al (Submitted on 4 Apr 2011) We report a study of the invariant mass distribution of jet pairs produced in association with a W boson using data collected with the CDF detector which correspond to an integrated luminosity of 4.3 fb^-1. The observed distribution has an excess in the 120-160 GeV/c^2 mass range which is not described by current theoretical predictions within the statistical and systematic uncertainties. In this letter we report studies of the properties of this excess. Comments: 8 pages, 2 figures Subjects: High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex) Report number: FERMILAB-PUB-11-164-E Cite as: arXiv:1104.0699v1 [hep-ex] Submission history From: Alberto Annovi [view email] [v1] Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:08:31 GMT (119kb,D) http://en.wikipedia....icolor_(physics) Technicolor theories are models of physics beyond the standard model that address electroweak symmetry breaking, the mechanism through which elementary particles acquire masses. Early technicolor theories were modelled on quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the "color" theory of the strong nuclear force, which inspired their name. Instead of introducing elementary Higgs bosons, technicolor models hide electroweak symmetry and generate masses for the W and Z bosons through the dynamics of new gauge interactions. Although asymptotically free at very high energies, these interactions must become strong and confining (and hence unobservable) at lower energies that have been experimentally probed. This dynamical approach is natural and avoids the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model.[1] In order to produce quark and lepton masses, technicolor has to be "extended" by additional gauge interactions. Particularly when modelled on QCD, extended technicolor is challenged by experimental constraints on flavor-changing neutral current and precision electroweak measurements. It is not known what is the extended technicolor dynamics. Much technicolor research focuses on exploring strongly-interacting gauge theories other than QCD, in order to evade some of these challenges. A particularly active framework is "walking" technicolor, which exhibits nearly-conformal behavior caused by an infrared fixed point with strength just above that necessary for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Whether walking can occur and lead to agreement with precision electroweak measurements is being studied through non-perturbative lattice simulations.[2] Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are expected to discover the mechanism responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking, and will be critical for determining whether the technicolor framework provides the correct description of nature. Contents [hide] 1 Introduction 2 Early technicolor 3 Extended technicolor 4 Walking technicolor

4.1 Top quark mass 5 Minimal Walking Models 6 Technicolor on the lattice 7 Technicolor phenomenology 7.1 Precision electroweak tests 7.2 Hadron collider phenomenology 7.3 Dark matter 8 See also 9 References [edit] Introduction The mechanism for the breaking of electroweak gauge symmetry in the Standard Model of elementary particle interactions remains unknown. The breaking must be spontaneous, meaning that the underlying theory manifests the symmetry exactly (the gauge-boson fields are massless in the equations of motion), but the solutions (the ground state and the excited states) do not. In particular, the physical W and Z gauge bosons become massive. This phenomenon, in which the W and Z bosons also acquire an extra polarization state, is called the "Higgs mechanism". Despite the precise agreement of the electroweak theory with experiment at energies accessible so far, the necessary ingredients for the symmetry breaking remain hidden, yet to be revealed at higher energies. The simplest mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking introduces a single complex field and predicts the existence of the Higgs boson. Typically, the Higgs boson is "unnatural" in the sense that quantum mechanical fluctuations produce corrections to its mass that lift it to such high values that it cannot play the role for which it was introduced. Unless the Standard Model breaks down at energies less than a few TeV, the Higgs mass can be kept small only by a delicate finetuning of parameters. Technicolor avoids this problem by hypothesizing a new gauge interaction coupled to new massless fermions. This interaction is asymptotically free at very high energies and becomes strong and confining as the energy decreases to the electroweak scale of roughly 250 GeV. These strong forces spontaneously break the massless fermions' chiral symmetries, some of which are weakly gauged as part of the Standard Model. This is the dynamical version of the Higgs mechanism. The electroweak gauge symmetry is thus broken, producing masses for the W and Z bosons. The new strong interaction leads to a host of new composite, short-lived particles at energies accessible at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This framework is natural because there are no elementary Higgs bosons and, hence, no fine-tuning of parameters. Quark and lepton masses also break the electroweak gauge symmetries, so they, too, must arise spontaneously. A mechanism for incorporating this feature is known as extended technicolor. Technicolor and extended technicolor face a number of phenomenological challenges. Some of them can be addressed within a class of theories known as walking technicolor. [edit] Early technicolor Technicolor is the name given to the theory of electroweak symmetry breaking by new strong gauge-interactions whose characteristic energy scale ΛTC is the weak scale itself, ΛTC ≅ FEW ≡ 246 GeV. The guiding principle of technicolor is "naturalness": basic physical phenomena should not require fine-tuning of the parameters in the Lagrangian that describes them. What constitutes fine-tuning is to some extent a subjective matter, but a theory with elementary scalar particles typically is very finely tuned (unless it is supersymmetric). The quadratic divergence in the scalar's mass requires adjustments of a part in , where Mbare is the cutoff of the theory, the energy scale at which the

theory changes in some essential way. In the standard electroweak model with Mbare ∼ 1015 GeV (the grand-unification mass scale), and with the Higgs boson mass Mphysical = 100–500 GeV, the mass is tuned to at least a part in 1025. By contrast, a natural theory of electroweak symmetry breaking is an asymptoticallyfree gauge theory with fermions as the only matter fields. The technicolor gauge group GTC is often assumed to be SU(NTC). Based on analogy with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), it is assumed that there are one or more doublets of massless Dirac "technifermions" transforming vectorially under the same complex representation of GTC, TiL,R = (Ui,Di)L,R, i = 1,2, … ,Nf/2. Thus, there is a chiral symmetry of these fermions, e.g., SU(Nf)L ⊗ SU(Nf)R, if they all transform according the same complex representation of GTC. Continuing the analogy with QCD, the running gauge coupling αTC(μ) triggers spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, the technifermions acquire a dynamical mass, and a number of massless Goldstone bosons result. If the technifermions transform under [SU(2) ⊗ U(1)]EW as left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets, three linear combinations of these Goldstone bosons couple to three of the electroweak gauge currents. In 1973 Jackiw and Johnson[3] and Cornwall and Norton[4] studied the possibility that a (non-vectorial) gauge interaction of fermions can break itself; i.e., is strong enough to form a Goldstone boson coupled to the gauge current. Using Abelian gauge models, they showed that, if such a Goldstone boson is formed, it is "eaten" by the Higgs mechanism, becoming the longitudinal component of the now massive gauge boson. Technically, the polarization function Π(p2) appearing in the gauge boson propagator, Δμν = (pμ pν/p2 - gμν)/[p2(1 Ð g2 Π(p2))] develops a pole at p2 = 0 with residue F2, the square of the Goldstone boson's decay constant, and the gauge boson acquires mass M ≅ g F. In 1973, Weinstein[5] showed that composite Goldstone bosons whose constituent fermions transform in the “standard” way under SU(2) ⊗ U(1) generate the weak boson masses

This standard-model relation is achieved with elementary Higgs bosons in electroweak doublets; it is verified experimentally to better than 1%. Here, g and g′ are SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings and tanθW = g′/g defines the weak mixing angle. The important idea of a new strong gauge interaction of massless fermions at the electroweak scale FEW driving the spontaneous breakdown of its global chiral symmetry, of which an SU(2) ⊗ U(1) subgroup is weakly gauged, was first proposed in 1979 by S. Weinberg[6] and L. Susskind.[7] This "technicolor" mechanism is natural in that no fine-tuning of parameters is necessary. [edit] Extended technicolor Elementary Higgs bosons perform another important task. In the Standard Model, quarks and leptons are necessarily massless because they transform under SU(2) ⊗ U(1) as left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets. The Higgs doublet couples to these fermions. When it develops its vacuum expectation value, it transmits this electroweak breaking to the quarks and leptons, giving them their observed masses. (In general, electroweak-eigenstate fermions are not mass eigenstates, so this process also induces the mixing matrices observed in charged-current weak interactions.) In technicolor, something else must generate the quark and lepton masses. The only natural possibility, one avoiding the introduction of elementary scalars, is to enlarge

GTC to allow technifermions to couple to quarks and leptons. This coupling is induced by gauge bosons of the enlarged group. The picture, then, is that there is a large "extended technicolor" (ETC) gauge group GETC ⊃ GTC in which technifermions, quarks, and leptons live in the same representations. At one or more high scales ΛETC, GETC is broken down to GTC, and quarks and leptons emerge as the TC-singlet fermions. When αTC(μ) becomes strong at scale ΛTC ≅ FEW, the fermionic condensate forms. (The condensate is the vacuum expectation value of the technifermion bilinear . The estimate here is based on naive dimensional analysis of the quark condensate in QCD, expected to be correct as an order of magnitude.) Then, the transitions can proceed through the technifermion's dynamical mass by the emission and reabsorption of ETC bosons whose masses METC ≅ gETC ΛETC are much greater than ΛTC. The quarks and leptons develop masses given approximately by

Here, is the technifermion condensate renormalized at the ETC boson mass scale,

where γm(μ) is the anomalous dimension of the technifermion bilinear at the scale μ. The second estimate in Eq. (2) depends on the assumption that, as happens in QCD, αTC(μ) becomes weak not far above ΛTC, so that the anomalous dimension γm of is small there. Extended technicolor was introduced in 1979 by Dimopoulos and Susskind,[8] and by Eichten and Lane.[9] For a quark of mass mq ≅ 1 GeV, and with ΛTC ≅ 250 GeV, one estimates ΛETC ≅ 15 TeV. Therefore, assuming that , METC will be at least this large. In addition to the ETC proposal for quark and lepton masses, Eichten and Lane observed that the size of the ETC representations required to generate all quark and lepton masses suggests that there will be more than one electroweak doublet of technifermions.[9] If so, there will be more (spontaneously broken) chiral symmetries and therefore more Goldstone bosons than are eaten by the Higgs mechanism. These must acquire mass by virtue of the fact that the extra chiral symmetries are also explicitly broken, by the standard-model interactions and the ETC interactions. These "pseudo-Goldstone bosons" are called technipions, πT. An application of Dashen's theorem[10] gives for the ETC contribution to their mass

The second approximation in Eq. (4) assumes that . For FEW ≅ ΛTC ≅ 250 GeV and ΛETC ≅ 15 TeV, this contribution to MπT is about 50 GeV. Since ETC interactions generate and the coupling of technipions to quark and lepton pairs, one expects the couplings to be Higgs-like; i.e., roughly proportional to the masses of the quarks and leptons. This means that technipions are expected to decay to the heaviest and pairs allowed. Perhaps the most important restriction on the ETC framework for quark mass generation is that ETC interactions are likely to induce flavor-changing neutral current processes such as μ → e γ, KL → μ e, and |Δ S| = 2 and |Δ B| = 2 interactions that induce and mixing.[9] The reason is that the algebra of the ETC currents involved in generation imply and ETC currents which, when written in terms of fermion mass eigenstates, have no reason to conserve flavor. The strongest constraint comes from requiring that ETC interactions mediating mixing contribute less than the Standard Model. This implies an effective ΛETC greater than 1000 TeV.

The actual ΛETC may be reduced somewhat if CKM-like mixing angle factors are present. If these interactions are CP-violating, as they well may be, the constraint from the ε-parameter is that the effective ΛETC > 104 TeV. Such huge ETC mass scales imply tiny quark and lepton masses and ETC contributions to MπT of at most a few GeV, in conflict with LEP searches for πT at the Z0. Extended technicolor is a very ambitious proposal, requiring that quark and lepton masses and mixing angles arise from experimentally accessible interactions. If there exists a successful model, it would not only predict the masses and mixings of quarks and leptons (and technipions), it would explain why there are three families of each: they are the ones that fit into the ETC representations of q, and T. It should not be surprising that the construction of a successful model has proven to be very difficult. [edit] Walking technicolor Since quark and lepton masses are proportional to the bilinear technifermion condensate divided by the ETC mass scale squared, their tiny values can be avoided if the condensate is enhanced above the weak-αTC estimate in Eq. (2), . During the 1980s, several dynamical mechanisms were advanced to do this. In 1981 Holdom suggested that, if the αTC(μ) evolves to a nontrivial fixed point in the ultraviolet, with a large positive anomalous dimension γm for , realistic quark and lepton masses could arise with ΛETC large enough to suppress ETC-induced mixing. [11] However, no example of a nontrivial ultraviolet fixed point in a four-dimensional gauge theory has been constructed. In 1985 Holdom analyzed a technicolor theory in which a “slowly varying” αTC(μ) was envisioned.[12] His focus was to separate the chiral breaking and confinement scales, but he also noted that such a theory could enhance and thus allow the ETC scale to be raised. In 1986 Akiba and Yanagida also considered enhancing quark and lepton masses, by simply assuming that αTC is constant and strong all the way up to the ETC scale.[13] In the same year Yamawaki, Bando and Matumoto again imagined an ultraviolet fixed point in a nonasymptotically free theory to enhance the technifermion condensate.[14] In 1986 Appelquist, Karabali and Wijewardhana discussed the enhancement of fermion masses in an asymptotically free technicolor theory with a slowly running, or “walking”, gauge coupling.[15] The slowness arose from the screening effect of a large number of technifermions, with the analysis carried out through two-loop perturbation theory. In 1987 Appelquist and Wijewardhana explored this walking scenario further.[16] They took the analysis to three loops, noted that the walking can lead to a power law enhancement of the technifermion condensate, and estimated the resultant quark, lepton, and technipion masses. The condensate enhancement arises because the associated technifermion mass decreases slowly, roughly linearly, as a function of its renormalization scale. This corresponds to the condensate anomalous dimension γm in Eq. (3) approaching unity (see below).[17] In the 1990s, the idea emerged more clearly that walking is naturally described by asymptotically free gauge theories dominated in the infrared by an approximate fixed point. Unlike the speculative proposal of ultraviolet fixed points, fixed points in the infrared are known to exist in asymptotically free theories, arising at two loops in the beta function providing that the fermion count Nf is large enough. This has been known since the first two-loop computation in 1974 by Caswell.[18] If Nf is close to the value at which asymptotic freedom is lost, the resultant infrared fixed point is weak, of parametric order , and reliably accessible in perturbation theory. This weakcoupling limit was explored by Banks and Zaks in 1982.[19]

The fixed-point coupling αIR becomes stronger as Nf is reduced from . Below some critical value Nfc the coupling becomes strong enough (> αχ SB) to break spontaneously the massless technifermions' chiral symmetry. Since the analysis must typically go beyond two-loop perturbation theory, the definition of the running coupling αTC(μ), it’s fixed point value αIR, and the strength αχ SB necessary for chiral symmetry breaking depend on the particular renormalization scheme adopted. For ; i.e., for Nf just below Nfc, the evolution of αTC(μ) is governed by the infrared fixed point and it will evolve slowly (walk) for a range of momenta above the breaking scale ΛTC. To overcome the -suppression of the masses of first and second generation quarks involved in mixing, this range must extend almost to their ETC scale, of . Cohen and Georgi argued that γm = 1 is the signal of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, i.e., that γm(αχ SB) = 1.[17] Therefore, in the walking-αTC region, γm ≅ 1 and, from Eqs. (2) and (3), the light quark masses are enhanced approximately by METC/ΛTC. The idea that αTC(μ) walks for a large range of momenta when αIR lies just above αχ SB was suggested by Lane and Ramana.[20] They made an explicit model, discussed the walking that ensued, and used it in their discussion of walking technicolor phenomenology at hadron colliders. This idea was developed in some detail by Appelquist, Terning and Wijewardhana.[21] Combining a perturbative computation of the infrared fixed point with an approximation of αχ SB based on the SchwingerDyson equation, they estimated the critical value Nfc and explored the resultant electroweak physics. Since the 1990s, most discussions of walking technicolor are in the framework of theories assumed to be dominated in the infrared by an approximate fixed point. Various models have been explored, some with the technifermions in the fundamental representation of the gauge group and some employing higher representations.[22][23][24] The possibility that the technicolor condensate can be enhanced beyond that discussed in the walking literature, has also been considered recently by Luty and Okui under the name "conformal technicolor".[25] They envision an infrared stable fixed point, but with a very large anomalous dimension for the operator . It remains to be seen whether this can be realized, for example, in the class of theories currently being examined using lattice techniques. [edit] Top quark mass The walking enhancement described above may be insufficient to generate the measured top quark mass, even for an ETC scale as low as a few TeV. However, this problem could be addressed if the effective four-technifermion coupling resulting from ETC gauge boson exchange is strong and tuned just above a critical value.[26] The analysis of this strong-ETC possibility is that of a Nambu–Jona–Lasinio model with an additional (technicolor) gauge interaction. The technifermion masses are small compared to the ETC scale (the cutoff on the effective theory), but nearly constant out to this scale, leading to a large top quark mass. No fully realistic ETC theory for all quark masses has yet been developed incorporating these ideas. A related study was carried out by Miransky and Yamawaki.[27] A problem with this approach is that it involves some degree of parameter fine-tuning, in conflict with technicolor’s guiding principle of naturalness. Finally, it should be noted that there is a large body of closely related work in which ETC does not generate mt. These are the top quark condensate,[28] topcolor and top-color-assisted technicolor models,[29] in which new strong interactions are ascribed to the top quark and other third-generation fermions. As with the strong-ETC scenario described above, all these proposals involve a considerable degree of fine-

tuning of gauge couplings. [edit] Minimal Walking Models In 2004 Francesco Sannino and Kimmo Tuominen proposed technicolor models with technifermions in higher-dimensional representations of the technicolor gauge group. [23] They argued that these more "minimal" models required fewer flavors of technifermions in order to exhibit walking behavior, making it easier to pass precision electroweak tests. For example, SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories may exhibit walking with as few as two Dirac flavors of fermions in the adjoint or two-index symmetric representation. In contrast, at least eight flavors of fermions in the fundamental representation of SU(3) (and possibly SU(2) as well) are required to reach the near-conformal regime.[24] These results continue to be investigated by various methods, including lattice simulations discussed below, which have confirmed the near-conformal dynamics of these minimal walking models. The first comprehensive effective Lagrangian for minimal walking models, featuring a light composite Higgs, spin-one states, tree-level unitarity, and consistency with phenomenological constraints was constructed in 2007 by Foadi, Frandsen, Ryttov and Sannino.[30] [edit] Technicolor on the lattice Lattice gauge theory is a non-perturbative method applicable to strongly-interacting technicolor theories, allowing first-principles exploration of walking and conformal dynamics. In 2007, Catterall and Sannino used lattice gauge theory to study SU(2) gauge theories with two flavors of Dirac fermions in the symmetric representation, [31] finding evidence of conformality that has been confirmed by subsequent studies. [32] As of 2010, the situation for SU(3) gauge theory with fermions in the fundamental representation is not as clear-cut. In 2007, Appelquist, Fleming and Neil reported evidence that a non-trivial infrared fixed point develops in such theories when there are twelve flavors, but not when there are eight.[33] While some subsequent studies confirmed these results, others reported different conclusions, depending on the lattice methods used, and there is not yet consensus.[34] Further lattice studies exploring these issues, as well as considering the consequences of these theories for precision electroweak measurements, are underway by several research groups.[35] [edit] Technicolor phenomenology Any framework for physics beyond the Standard Model must conform with precision measurements of the electroweak parameters. Its consequences for physics at existing and future high-energy hadron colliders, and for the dark matter of the universe must also be explored. [edit] Precision electroweak tests In 1990, the phenomenological parameters S, T, and U were introduced by Peskin and Takeuchi to quantify contributions to electroweak radiative corrections from physics beyond the Standard Model.[36] They have a simple relation to the parameters of the electroweak chiral Lagrangian.[37][38] The Peskin-Takeuchi

analysis was based on the general formalism for weak radiative corrections developed by Kennedy, Lynn, Peskin and Stuart,[39] and alternate formulations also exist.[40] The S, T, and U-parameters describe corrections to the electroweak gauge boson propagators from physics Beyond the Standard Model. They can be written in terms of polarization functions of electroweak currents and their spectral representation as follows:

where only new, beyond-standard-model physics is included. The quantities are calculated relative to a minimal Standard Model with some chosen reference mass of the Higgs boson, taken to range from the experimental lower bound of 117 GeV to 1000 GeV where its width becomes very large.[41] For these parameters to describe the dominant corrections to the Standard Model, the mass scale of the new physics must be much greater than MW and MZ, and the coupling of quarks and leptons to the new particles must be suppressed relative to their coupling to the gauge bosons. This is the case with technicolor, so long as the lightest technivector mesons, ρT and aT, are heavier than 200–300 GeV. The S-parameter is sensitive to all new physics at the TeV scale, while T is a measure of weak-isospin breaking effects. The Uparameter is generally not useful; most new-physics theories, including technicolor theories, give negligible contributions to it. The S and T-parameters are determined by global fit to experimental data including Z-pole data from LEP at CERN, top quark and W-mass measurements at Fermilab, and measured levels of atomic parity violation. The resultant bounds on these parameters are given in the Review of Particle Properties.[41] Assuming U = 0, the S and T parameters are small and, in fact, consistent with zero:

where the central value corresponds to a Higgs mass of 117 GeV and the correction to the central value when the Higgs mass is increased to 300 GeV is given in parentheses. These values place tight restrictions on beyond-standard-model theories—when the relevant corrections can be reliably computed. The S parameter estimated in QCD-like technicolor theories is significantly greater than the experimentally-allowed value.[36][40] The computation was done assuming that the spectral integral for S is dominated by the lightest ρT and aT resonances, or by scaling effective Lagrangian parameters from QCD. In walking technicolor, however, the physics at the TeV scale and beyond must be quite different from that of QCD-like theories. In particular, the vector and axial-vector spectral functions cannot be dominated by just the lowest-lying resonances.[42] It is unknown whether higher energy contributions to are a tower of identifiable ρT and aT states or a smooth continuum. It has been conjectured that ρT and aT partners could be more nearly degenerate in walking theories (approximate parity doubling), reducing their contribution to S.[43] Lattice calculations are underway or planned to test these ideas and obtain reliable estimates of S in walking theories.[2][44] The restriction on the T-parameter poses a problem for the generation of the topquark mass in the ETC framework. The enhancement from walking can allow the associated ETC scale to be as large as a few TeV,[21] but—since the ETC interactions must be strongly weak-isospin breaking to allow for the large top-bottom mass splitting—the contribution to the T parameter,[45] as well as the rate for the decay ,

[46] could be too large. [edit] Hadron collider phenomenology Early studies generally assumed the existence of just one electroweak doublet of technifermions, or one techni-family including one doublet each of color-triplet techniquarks and color-singlet technileptons.[47] In the minimal, one-doublet model, three Goldstone bosons (technipions, πT) have decay constant F = FEW = 246 GeV and are eaten by the electroweak gauge bosons. The most accessible collider signal is the production through annihilation in a hadron collider of spin-one , and their subsequent decay into a pair of longitudinally-polarized weak bosons, and . At an expected mass of 1.5–2.0 TeV and width of 300–400 GeV, such ρT's would be difficult to discover at the LHC. A one-family model has a large number of physical technipions, with F = FEW/√4 = 123 GeV.[48] There is a collection of correspondingly lower-mass color-singlet and octet technivectors decaying into technipion pairs. The πT's are expected to decay to the heaviest possible quark and lepton pairs. Despite their lower masses, the ρT's are wider than in the minimal model and the backgrounds to the πT decays are likely to be insurmountable at a hadron collider. This picture changed with the advent of walking technicolor. A walking gauge coupling occurs if αχ SB lies just below the IR fixed point value αIR, which requires either a large number of electroweak doublets in the fundamental representation of the gauge group, e.g., or a few doublets in higher-dimensional TC representations. [22][49] In the latter case, the constraints on ETC representations generally imply other technifermions in the fundamental representation as well.[9][20] In either case, there are technipions πT with decay constant . This implies so that the lightest technivectors accessible at the LHC—ρT, ωT, aT (with IG JPC = 1+ 1−−, 0− 1−−, 1− 1++)—have masses well below a TeV. The class of theories with many technifermions and thus is called low-scale technicolor.[50] A second consequence of walking technicolor concerns the decays of the spin-one technihadrons. Since technipion masses (see Eq. (4)), walking enhances them much more than it does other technihadron masses. Thus, it is very likely that the lightest MρT < 2MπT and that the two and three-πT decay channels of the light technivectors are closed.[22] This further implies that these technivectors are very narrow. Their most probable two-body channels are , WL WL, γ πT and γ WL. The coupling of the lightest technivectors to WL is proportional to F/FEW.[51] Thus, all their decay rates are suppressed by powers of or the fine-structure constant, giving total widths of a few GeV (for ρT) to a few tenths of a GeV (for ωT and T). A more speculative consequence of walking technicolor is motivated by consideration of its contribution to the S-parameter. As noted above, the usual assumptions made to estimate STC are invalid in a walking theory. In particular, the spectral integrals used to evaluate STC cannot be dominated by just the lowest-lying ρT and aT and, if STC is to be small, the masses and weak-current couplings of the ρT and aT could be more nearly equal than they are in QCD. Low-scale technicolor phenomenology, including the possibility of a more paritydoubled spectrum, has been developed into a set of rules and decay amplitudes.[51] An April 2011 announcement of an excess in jet pairs produced in association with a W boson measured at the Tevatron[52] has been interpreted by Eichten, Lane and Martin as a possible signal of the technipion of low-scale technicolor.[53] The general scheme of low-scale technicolor makes little sense if the limit on is pushed past about 700 GeV. The LHC should be able to discover it or rule it out.

Searches there involving decays to technipions and thence to heavy quark jets are hampered by backgrounds from production; its rate is 100 times larger than that at the Tevatron. Consequently, the discovery of low-scale technicolor at the LHC relies on all-leptonic final-state channels with favorable signal-to-background ratios: , and . [54] [edit] Dark matter Technicolor theories naturally contain dark matter candidates. Almost certainly, models can be built in which the lowest-lying technibaryon, a technicolor-singlet bound state of technifermions, is stable enough to survive the evolution of the universe.[41][55] If the technicolor theory is low-scale (), the baryon's mass should be no more than 1–2 TeV. If not, it could be much heavier. The technibaryon must be electrically neutral and satisfy constraints on its abundance. Given the limits on spinindependent dark-matter-nucleon cross sections from dark-matter search experiments ( for the masses of interest[56]), it may have to be electroweak neutral (weak isospin I = 0) as well. These considerations suggest that the "old" technicolor dark matter candidates may be difficult to produce at the LHC. A different class of technicolor dark matter candidates light enough to be accessible at the LHC was introduced by Francesco Sannino and his collaborators.[57] These states are pseudo Goldstone bosons possessing a global charge that makes them stable against decay. Topcolor From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In theoretical physics, Topcolor is a model of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking in which the top quark and anti-top quark form a top quark condensate and act effectively like the Higgs boson. This is analogous to the phenomenon of superconductivity. Topcolor naturally involves an extension of the standard model color gauge group to a product group SU(3)xSU(3)xSU(3)x... One of the gauge groups contains the top and bottom quarks, and has a sufficiently large coupling constant to cause the condensate to form. The topcolor model thus anticipates the idea of dimensional deconstruction and extra space dimensions, as well as the large mass of the top quark. Topcolor, and its prediction of "topgluons," will be tested in coming experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Topcolor rescues the Technicolor model from some of its difficulties in a scheme dubbed "Topcolor-assisted Technicolor."

In particle physics, the top quark condensate theory is an alternative to the Standard Model in which a fundamental scalar Higgs field is replaced by a composite field composed of the top quark and its antiquark. These are bound by a four-fermion interaction, analogous to Cooper pairs in a BCS superconductor and nucleons in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. The top quark condenses because its measured mass is approximately 173 GeV (comparable to the electroweak scale), and so its Yukawa coupling is of order unity, yielding the possibility of strong coupling dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement

Color confinement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The color force favors confinement because at a certain range it is more energetically favorable to create a quark-antiquark pair than to continue to elongate the color flux tube. This is analoguous to the behavior of an elongated rubber-band. Color confinement, often simply called confinement, is the physics phenomenon that color charged particles (such as quarks) cannot be isolated singularly, and therefore cannot be directly observed.[1] Quarks, by default, clump together to form groups, or hadrons. The two types of hadrons are the mesons (one quark, one antiquark) and the baryons (three quarks). The constituent quarks in a group cannot be separated from their parent hadron, and this is why quarks can never be studied or observed in any more direct way than at a hadron level.[2]Contents [hide] 1 Origin 2 Models exhibiting confinement 3 See also 4 References 5 External links [edit] Origin The reasons for quark confinement are somewhat complicated; no analytic proof exists that quantum chromodynamics should be confining, but intuitively, confinement is due to the force-carrying gluons having color charge. As any two electrically-charged particles separate, the electric fields between them diminish quickly, allowing (for example) electrons to become unbound from atomic nuclei. However, as two quarks separate, the gluon fields form narrow tubes (or strings) of color charge, which tend to bring the quarks together as though they were some kind of rubber band. This is quite different in behavior from electrical charge. Because of this behavior, the color force experienced by the quarks in the direction to hold them together, remains constant, regardless of their distance from each other.[3][4] The color force between quarks is large, even on a macroscopic scale, being on the order of 100,000 newtons.[citation needed] As discussed above, it is constant, and does not decrease with increasing distance after a certain point has been passed. When two quarks become separated, as happens in particle accelerator collisions, at some point it is more energetically favorable for a new quark–antiquark pair to spontaneously appear, than to allow the tube to extend further. As a result of this, when quarks are produced in particle accelerators, instead of seeing the individual quarks in detectors, scientists see "jets" of many color-neutral particles (mesons and baryons), clustered together. This process is called hadronization, fragmentation, or string breaking, and is one of the least understood processes in particle physics. The confining phase is usually defined by the behavior of the action of the Wilson loop, which is simply the path in spacetime traced out by a quark–antiquark pair created at one point and annihilated at another point. In a non-confining theory, the action of such a loop is proportional to its perimeter. However, in a confining theory, the action of the loop is instead proportional to its area. Since the area will be proportional to the separation of the quark–antiquark pair, free quarks are suppressed. Mesons are allowed in such a picture, since a loop containing another loop in the opposite direction will have only a small area between the two loops. [edit]

Models exhibiting confinement Besides QCD in 4D, another model which exhibits confinement is the Schwinger model.[citation needed] Compact Abelian gauge theories also exhibit confinement in 2 and 3 spacetime dimensions.[citation needed] Confinement has recently been found in elementary excitations of magnetic systems called spinons.[5] [edit] See also Quantum chromodynamics Asymptotic freedom Deconfining phase Quantum mechanics Particle physics Fundamental force Dual superconducting model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_superconducting_model In the theory of quantum chromodynamics, dual superconductor models attempt to explain confinement of quarks in terms of an electromagnetic dual theory of superconductivity. In an electromagnetic dual theory the roles of electric and magnetic fields are interchanged. The BCS theory of superconductivity explains superconductivity as the result of the condensation electric chargers to cooper pairs. In a dual superconductor an analogous effect occurs through the condensation of magnetic charges (also called magnetic monopoles). In ordinary electromagnetic theory, no monopoles have been shown to exist. However, in quantum chromodynamics — the theory of colour charge which explains the strong interaction between quarks — the colour charges can be view as (non-abelian) analogues of electric charges and corresponding magnetic monopoles are known to exist. Dual superconductor models posit that condensation of these magnetic monopoles in a superconductive state explains colour confinement — the phenomenon that only neutrally coloured bound states are observed at low energies. Qualitatively, confinement in dual superconductor models can be understood as a result of the dual to the Meissner effect. The Meissner effect says that a superconducting metal will try to expel magnetic field lines from its interior. If a magnetic field is forced to run through the superconductor, the field lines are compressed in magnetic flux tubes. In a dual superconductor the roles of magnetic and electric fields are exchanged and the Meissner effect tries to expel electric field lines. Quarks and antiquarks carry opposite colour charges, and for a quark–antiquark pair 'electric' field lines run from the quark to the antiquark. If the quark–antiquark pair are immersed in a dual superconductor, then the electric field lines get compressed to a flux tube. The energy associated to the tube is proportional to its length, and the potential energy of the quark–antiquark is proportional to their separation. A quark–antiquark will therefore always bind regardless of their separation, which explains why no unbound quarks are ever found.[note 1] Dual superconductors are described by (a dual to) the Landau–Ginzburg model, which is equivalent to the Abelian Higgs model. The dual superconductor model is motivated by several observations in calculations using lattice gauge theory. The model, however, also has some shortcomings. In particular, although it confines coloured quarks, it fails to confine colour of some

gluons, allowing coloured bound states at energies observable in particle colliders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gauge_theory In physics, lattice gauge theory is the study of gauge theories on a spacetime that has been discretized into a lattice. Gauge theories are important in particle physics, and include the prevailing theories of elementary particles: quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and the Standard Model. Nonperturbative gauge theory calculations in continuous spacetime formally involve evaluating an infinite-dimensional path integral, which is computationally intractable. By working on a discrete spacetime, the path integral becomes finite-dimensional, and can be evaluated by stochastic simulation techniques such as the Monte Carlo method. When the size of the lattice is taken infinitely large and its sites infinitesimally close to each other, the continuum gauge theory is recovered intuitively. A mathematical proof of this fact is lacking.Contents [hide] 1 Basics 2 Yang–Mills action 3 Measurements 4 Other applications 5 See also 6 Further reading 7 External links 8 References [edit] Basics In lattice gauge theory, the spacetime is Wick rotated into Euclidean space and discretized into a lattice with sites separated by distance a and connected by links. In the most commonly-considered cases, such as lattice QCD, fermion fields are defined at lattice sites (which leads to fermion doubling), while the gauge fields are defined on the links. That is, an element U of the compact Lie group G is assigned to each link. Hence to simulate QCD, with Lie group SU(3), there is a 3×3 special unitary matrix defined on each link. The link is assigned an orientation, with the inverse element corresponding to the same link with the opposite orientation. [edit] Yang–Mills action The Yang–Mills action is written on the lattice using Wilson loops (named after Kenneth G. Wilson), so that the limit formally reproduces the original continuum action.[1] Given a faithful irreducible representation ρ of G, the lattice Yang-Mills action is the sum over all lattice sites of the (real component of the) trace over the n links e1, ..., en in the Wilson loop, Here, χ is the character. If ρ is a real (or pseudoreal) representation, taking the real component is redundant, because even if the orientation of a Wilson loop is flipped, its contribution to the action remains unchanged. There are many possible lattice Yang-Mills actions, depending on which Wilson loops are used in the action. The simplest "Wilson action" uses only the 1×1 Wilson loop, and differs from the continuum action by "lattice artifacts" proportional to the small lattice spacing a. By using more complicated Wilson loops to construct "improved actions", lattice artifacts can be reduced to be proportional to a2, making computations more accurate. [edit]

Measurements Quantities such as particle masses are stochastically calculated using techniques such as the Monte Carlo method. Gauge field configurations are generated with probabilities proportional to e − βS, where S is the lattice action and β is related to the lattice spacing a. The quantity of interest is calculated for each configuration, and averaged. Calculations are often repeated at different lattice spacings a so that the result can be extrapolated to the continuum, . Such calculations are often extremely computationally intensive, and can require the use of the largest available supercomputers. To reduce the computational burden, the so-called quenched approximation can be used, in which the fermionic fields are treated as non-dynamic "frozen" variables. While this was common in early lattice QCD calculations, "dynamical" fermions are now standard.[2] These simulations typically utilize algorithms based upon molecular dynamics or microcanonical ensemble algorithms.[3][4] [edit] Other applications Originally, solvable two-dimensional lattice gauge theories had already been introduced in 1971 as models with interesting statistical properties by the theorist Franz Wegner, who worked in the field of phase transitions.[5] Lattice gauge theory has been shown to be exactly dual to spin foam models provided that only 1×1 Wilson loops appear in the action. [edit] See also Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory Lattice field theory Lattice QCD Quantum triviality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_QCD Lattice QCD is a well-established non-perturbative approach to solving the quantum chromodynamics (QCD) theory of quarks and gluons. It is a lattice gauge theory formulated on a grid or lattice of points in space and time. Analytic or perturbative solutions in low-energy QCD are hard or impossible due to the highly nonlinear nature of the strong force. This formulation of QCD in discrete rather than continuous spacetime naturally introduces a momentum cut off at the order 1/a, where a is the lattice spacing, which regularizes the theory. As a result lattice QCD is mathematically well-defined. Most importantly, lattice QCD provides a framework for investigation of non-perturbative phenomena such as confinement and quark-gluon plasma formation, which are intractable by means of analytic field theories. In lattice QCD, fields representing quarks are defined at lattice sites (which leads to fermion doubling), while the gluon fields are defined on the links connecting neighboring sites. This approximation approaches continuum QCD as the spacing between lattice sites is reduced to zero. Because the computational cost of numerical simulations can increase dramatically as the lattice spacing decreases, results are often extrapolated to a = 0 by repeated calculations at different lattice spacings a that are large enough to be tractable. Numerical lattice QCD calculations using Monte Carlo methods can be extremely computationally intensive, requiring the use of the largest available supercomputers. To reduce the computational burden, the so-called quenched approximation can be used, in which the quark fields are treated

as non-dynamic "frozen" variables. While this was common in early lattice QCD calculations, "dynamical" fermions are now standard.[1] These simulations typically utilize algorithms based upon molecular dynamics or microcanonical ensemble algorithms.[2][3] At present, lattice QCD is primarily applicable at low densities where the numerical sign problem does not interfere with calculations. Lattice QCD predicts that confined quarks will become released to quark-gluon plasma around energies of 170 MeV. Monte Carlo methods are free from the sign problem when applied to the case of QCD with gauge group SU(2) (QC2D). Lattice QCD has already made successful contact with many experiments. For example the mass of the proton has been determined theoretically with an error of less than 2 percent.[4] Lattice QCD has also been used as a benchmark for high-performance computing, an approach originally developed in the context of the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer.Contents [hide] 1 Techniques 1.1 Monte-Carlo simulations 1.2 Fermions on the lattice 1.3 Lattice perturbation theory 2 See also 3 Notes 4 Further reading 5 External links [edit] Techniques [edit] Monte-Carlo simulations A frame from a Monte-Carlo simulation illustrating the typical four-dimensional structure of gluonfield configurations used in describing the vacuum properties of QCD. Monte-Carlo is a method to pseudo-randomly sample a large space of variables. The importance sampling technique used to select the gauge configurations in the Monte-Carlo simulation imposes the use of Euclidean time, by a Wick rotation of space-time. In lattice Monte-Carlo simulations the aim is to calculate correlation functions. This is done by explicitly calculating the action, using field configurations which are chosen according to the distribution function, which depends on the action and the fields. Usually one starts with the gauge bosons part and gauge-fermion interaction part of the action to calculate the gauge configurations, and then uses the simulated gauge configurations to calculate hadronic propagators and correlation functions. [edit] Fermions on the lattice Lattice QCD is a way to solve the theory exactly from first principles, without any assumptions, to the desired precision. However, in practice the calculation power is limited, which requires a smart use of the available resources. One needs to choose an action which gives the best physical description of the system, with minimum errors, using the available computational power. The limited computer resources force one to use physical constants which are different from their true physical values: The lattice discretization means a finite lattice spacing and size, which do not exist in the continuous and infinite space-time. In addition to the automatic error introduced by this, the limited resources force the use of smaller physical lattices and larger lattice spacing than wanted in order to minimize errors. Another unphysical quantity is the quark masses. Quark masses are steadily going down, but todate (2010) they are typically too high with respect to the real value.

In order to compensate for the errors one improves the lattice action in various ways, to minimize mainly finite spacing errors. [edit] Lattice perturbation theory The lattice was initially introduced by Wilson as a framework for studying strongly coupled theories, such as QCD, non-perturbatively. it was found to be a regularization also suitable for perturbative calculations. Perturbation theory involves an expansion in the coupling constant, and is well-justified in high-energy QCD where the coupling constant is small, while it fails completely when the coupling is large and higher order corrections are larger than lower orders in the perturbative series. In this region non-perturbative methods, such as Monte-Carlo sampling of the correlation function, are necessary. Lattice perturbation theory can also provide results for condensed matter theory. One can use the lattice to represent the real atomic crystal. In this case the lattice spacing is a real physical value, and not an artifact of the calculation which has to be removed, and a quantum field theory can be formulated and solved on the physical lattice. [edit] See also Lattice field theory Lattice gauge theory QCD matter QCD sum rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_lattice_gauge_theory In physics, Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory is a calculational approach to gauge theory and a special case of lattice gauge theory in which the space is discretized but time is not. The Hamiltonian is then re-expressed as a function of degrees of freedom defined on a d-dimensional lattice. Following Wilson, the spatial components of the vector potential are replaced with Wilson lines over the edges, but the time component is associated with the vertices. However, the temporal gauge is often employed, setting the electric potential to zero. The eigenvalues of the Wilson line operators U(e) (where e is the (oriented) edge in question) take on values on the Lie group G. It is assumed that G is compact, otherwise we run into many problems. The conjugate operator to U(e) is the electric field E(e) whose eigenvalues take on values in the Lie algebra . The Hamiltonian receives contributions coming from the plaquettes (the magnetic contribution) and contributions coming from the edges (the electric contribution). Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory is exactly dual to a theory of spin networks. This involves using the Peter-Weyl theorem. In the spin network basis, the spin network states are eigenstates of the operator Tr[E(e)2]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes interactions between particles to become arbitrarily weak at energy scales that become arbitrarily large, or, equivalently, at length scales that become arbitrarily small (at the shortest distances). Asymptotic freedom is a feature of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the quantum field theory of the nuclear interaction between quarks and gluons, the fundamental constituents of nuclear matter. Quarks interact weakly at high energies, allowing perturbative calculations by DGLAP of cross sections in deep inelastic processes of particle physics; and strongly at low energies, preventing the unbinding of baryons (like protons or neutrons with three quarks) or mesons (like

pions with two quarks), the composite particles of nuclear matter. Asymptotic freedom was discovered by Frank Wilczek, David Gross, and David Politzer who in 2004 shared the Nobel Prize in physics.Contents [hide] 1 Discovery 2 Screening and antiscreening 3 Calculating asymptotic freedom 4 See also 5 References [edit] Discovery Asymptotic freedom was discovered in 1973 by David Gross and Frank Wilczek, and by David Politzer. Although these authors were the first to understand the physical relevance to the strong interactions, in 1969 Iosif Khriplovich discovered asymptotic freedom in the SU(2) gauge theory as a mathematical curiosity, and Gerardus 't Hooft in 1972 also noted the effect but did not publish. For their discovery, Gross, Wilczek and Politzer were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004. The discovery was instrumental in rehabilitating quantum field theory. Prior to 1973, many theorists suspected that field theory was fundamentally inconsistent because the interactions become infinitely strong at short-distances. This phenomenon is usually called a Landau pole, and it defines the smallest length scale that a theory can describe. This problem was discovered in field theories of interacting scalars and spinors, including quantum electrodynamics, and Lehman positivity led many to suspect that it is unavoidable. Asymptotically free theories become weak at short distances, there is no Landau pole, and these quantum field theories are believed to be completely consistent down to any length scale. While the Standard Model is not entirely asymptotically free, in practice the Landau pole can only be a problem when thinking about the strong interactions. The other interactions are so weak that any inconsistency can only arise at distances shorter than the Planck length, where a field theory description is inadequate anyway. [edit] Screening and antiscreening Charge screening in QED The variation in a physical coupling constant under changes of scale can be understood qualitatively as coming from the action of the field on virtual particles carrying the relevant charge. The Landau pole behavior of quantum electrodynamics (QED, related to quantum triviality) is a consequence of screening by virtual charged particle-antiparticle pairs, such as electron-positron pairs, in the vacuum. In the vicinity of a charge, the vacuum becomes polarized: virtual particles of opposing charge are attracted to the charge, and virtual particles of like charge are repelled. The net effect is to partially cancel out the field at any finite distance. Getting closer and closer to the central charge, one sees less and less of the effect of the vacuum, and the effective charge increases. In QCD the same thing happens with virtual quark-antiquark pairs; they tend to screen the color charge. However, QCD has an additional wrinkle: its force-carrying particles, the gluons, themselves carry color charge, and in a different manner. Each gluon carries both a color charge and an anti-color magnetic moment. The net effect of polarization of virtual gluons in the vacuum is not to screen the field, but to augment it and affect its color. This is sometimes called antiscreening. Getting closer to a quark diminishes the antiscreening effect of the surrounding virtual gluons, so the contribution of this effect would be to weaken the effective charge with decreasing distance.

Since the virtual quarks and the virtual gluons contribute opposite effects, which effect wins out depends on the number of different kinds, or flavors, of quark. For standard QCD with three colors, as long as there are no more than 16 flavors of quark (not counting the antiquarks separately), antiscreening prevails and the theory is asymptotically free. In fact, there are only 6 known quark flavors. [edit] Calculating asymptotic freedom Asymptotic freedom can be derived by calculating the beta-function describing the variation of the theory's coupling constant under the renormalization group. For sufficiently short distances or large exchanges of momentum (which probe short-distance behavior, roughly because of the inverse relation between a quantum's momentum and De Broglie wavelength), an asymptotically free theory is amenable to perturbation theory calculations using Feynman diagrams. Such situations are therefore more theoretically tractable than the long-distance, strong-coupling behavior also often present in such theories, which is thought to produce confinement. Calculating the beta-function is a matter of evaluating Feynman diagrams contributing to the interaction of a quark emitting or absorbing a gluon. In non-abelian gauge theories such as QCD, the existence of asymptotic freedom depends on the gauge group and number of flavors of interacting particles. To lowest nontrivial order, the beta-function in an SU(N) gauge theory with nf kinds of quark-like particle is where α is the theory's equivalent of the fine-structure constant, g2 / (4π) in the units favored by particle physicists. If this function is negative, the theory is asymptotically free. For SU(3), the color charge gauge group of QCD, the theory is therefore asymptotically free if there are 16 or fewer flavors of quarks. For SU(3) N = 3, and β1 < 0 gives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_scaling_dimension In theoretical physics, by anomaly one usually means that the symmetry remains broken when the symmetry-breaking factor goes to zero. When the symmetry which is broken is scale invariance, then true power laws usually cannot be found from dimensional reasoning like in turbulence or quantum field theory. In the latter, the anomalous scaling dimension of an operator is the contribution of quantum mechanics to the classical scaling dimension of that operator. The classical scaling dimension of an operator O is determined by dimensional analysis from the Lagrangian (in 4 spacetime dimensions this means dimension 1 for elementary bosonic fields including the vector potentials, 3/2 for elementary fermionic fields etc.). However if one computes the correlator of two operators of this type, one often finds logarithmic divergences arising from one-loop Feynman diagrams. The expansion in the coupling constant has the schematic form where g is a coupling constant, Δ0 is the classical dimension, and Λ is an ultraviolet cutoff (the maximal allowed energy in the loop integrals). A is a constant that appears in the loop diagrams. The expression above may be viewed as a Taylor expansion of the full quantum dimension. The term g2A is the anomalous scaling dimension while Δ is the full dimension.

Conformal field theories are typically strongly coupled and the full dimension cannot be easily calculated by Taylor expansions. The full dimensions in this case are often called critical exponents. These operators describe conformal bound states with a continuous mass spectrum. In particular, 2Δ = d − 2 + η for the critical exponent η for a scalar operator. We have an anomalous scaling dimension when η ≠ 0. An anomalous scaling dimension indicates a scale dependent wavefunction renormalization. Anomalous scaling appears also in classical physics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-amazing-disappearing-neutrino The Amazing Disappearing Antineutrino A revised calculation suggests that around 3% of particles have gone missing from nuclear reactor experiments. | April 1, 2011 | 10 * By Eugenie Samuel Reich of Nature magazine Neutrinos have long perplexed physicists with their uncanny ability to evade detection, with as many as two-thirds of the ghostly particles apparently going missing en route from the Sun to Earth. Now a refined version of an old calculation is causing a stir by suggesting that researchers have also systematically underestimated the number of the particles' antimatter partners-antineutrinos--produced by nuclear reactor experiments. The deficit could be caused by the antineutrinos turning into so-called 'sterile antineutrinos', which can't be directly detected, and which would be clear evidence for effects beyond the standard model of particle physics. In the 1960s, physicist Ray Davis, working deep underground in the Homestake gold mine in South Dakota, found that the flux of solar neutrinos hitting Earth was a third of that predicted by calculations of the nuclear reactions in the Sun by theorist John Bahcall. Davis later received a Nobel prize for his contributions to neutrino astrophysics. That puzzle was considered solved in 2001, when the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada found the missing two-thirds through an alternative means of detection. The SNO's results were taken as evidence that neutrinos have a mass, which allows them to oscillate between three flavors: electron, muon and tau. Davis had only detected the electron neutrinos. Experiments that measure the rate of antineutrino production from the decay of uranium and plutonium isotopes have so far produced results roughly consistent with this theory. But the revised calculation accepted this week by Physical Review D suggests that it's not the whole story. While waiting for the Double Chooz neutrino experiment in France to become fully operational, Thierry Lasserre and his colleagues at the French atomic energy commission(CEA) in Saclay set out to check predictions of the rate of antineutrino production by nuclear reactors. They repeated a calculation first done in the 1980s by Klaus Schreckenbach at the Technical University of Munich, using more modern techniques that allowed them to be much more precise.

Their new estimate of the rate of production is around 3% more than previously predicted. This means that several generations of neutrino and antineutrino experiments have unknowingly missed a small fraction of the particles. "It was completely a surprise for us," says Lasserre. Double Chooz consists of two detectors measuring the flux of antineutrinos produced by the Chooz nuclear power plant in the French Ardennes, one detector about 400 meters away from the plant and the other 1 kilometer away. The far detector became operational this year. Stefan Schönert, a neutrino physicist at the Technical University of Munich, says the calculation is solid, and has been checked with Schreckenbach. "They can reproduce each other's results. There's no way around this result. It's very solid." Art McDonald of Queen's University in Kingston, Canada and the SNO says that people have to look carefully at the calculation, which may itself have a systematic error. But, he adds, "there's no doubt it would have significance as a physics result if it can be shown with more accuracy." The result may be pointing to evidence of neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillating into a fourth kind of neutrino or antineutrino, a so-called 'sterile' version that doesn't interact with ordinary matter, says Carlo Giunti, a physicist at the University of Turin in Italy. Other experiments have previously seen evidence for sterile particles, including the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment, or MiniBooNE, at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, and the search to confirm their existence is a hot area of physics. Giunti says that the magnitude of the anomaly uncovered by Lasserre is not statistically significant on its own, but that it points promisingly in the same direction as another anomaly found by the SAGE collaboration, which studied neutrinos from a radioactive source at the Baksan Neutrino Observatory in the Caucasus in 2005. "Before this, there used to be a contradiction between [reactor and radioactive source] experiments but now they are in agreement," says Giunti. Schönert says that one key experiment everyone is waiting for is a measurement showing that the rate of disappearance of antineutrinos from a source increases with the distance from it. "This would be the smoking gun," he says. This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on April 1, 2011. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310571 A Map of the Universe J. Richard Gott III, Mario Jurić, David Schlegel, Fiona Hoyle, Michael Vogeley, Max Tegmark, Neta Bahcall, Jon Brinkmann (Submitted on 20 Oct 2003 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2005 (this version, v2)) We have produced a new conformal map of the universe illustrating recent discoveries, ranging from Kuiper belt objects in the Solar system, to the galaxies and quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. This map projection, based on the logarithm map of the complex plane, preserves shapes locally, and yet is able to display the entire range of astronomical scales from the Earth's neighborhood to the cosmic microwave background. The conformal nature of the projection, preserving shapes locally, may be of particular use for analyzing large scale structure. Prominent in the map is a Sloan Great Wall of galaxies 1.37 billion light years long, 80% longer than the Great Wall discovered by Geller and Huchra and therefore the largest observed structure in the universe. Comments: Figure 8, and additional material accessible on the web at: this http URL Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)

Journal reference: Astrophys.J.624:463,2005 DOI: 10.1086/428890 Cite as: arXiv:astro-ph/0310571v2 http://www.astro.pri...n.edu/universe/ Logarithmic Maps of the Universe This website contains figures from "Map of the Universe" e-print, by Gott, Juric et al. The paper has been published in the Astrophysical Journal (Gott et al., 2005, ApJ, 624, 463), and you can also find the manuscript here (note: Figure 8. of the manuscript has been published as an inset poster, and has to be downloaded separately (see below)).

The Great Walls -- Largest Structures in the Universe

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains." Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, physicist, Cambridge University Our known Hubble length universe contains hundreds of millions of galaxies that have clumped together, forming super clusters and a series of massive walls of galaxies separated by vast voids of empty space. Great Wall: The most vast structure ever is a collection of superclusters a billion light years away extending for 5% the length of the entire observable universe. It is theorized that such structures as the Great Wall form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter that dictates the structure of the Universe on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this normal matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters. If it took God one week to make the Earth, going by mass it would take him two quintillion years to build this thing -- far longer than science says the universe has existed, and it's kind of fun to have those two the other way around for a change. Though He could always omnipotently cheat and say "Let there be a Sloan Great Wall." The Great Wall is a massive array of astronomical objects named after the observations which revealed them, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. An eight year project scanned over a quarter of the sky to generate full 3-D maps of almost a million galaxies. Analysis of these images revealed a huge panel of galaxies 1.37 billion light years long, and even the pedantic-sounding .07 is six hundred and sixty billion trillion kilometers. This is science precisely measuring made-up sounding numbers. Sloane_9: This isn't the only wall out there -- others exist, all with far greater lengths

than width or depth, actual sheets of galaxies forming some of the most impressive anythings there are. And these walls are only a special class of galactic filaments, long strings of matter stretched between mind-breaking expanses of emptiness. Some of these elongated super clusters have formed a series of walls, one after another, spaced from 500 million to 800 million light years apart, such that in one direction alone, 13 Great Walls have formed with the inner and outer walls separated by less than seven billion light years. Recently, cosmologists have estimated that some of these galactic walls may have taken from 80 billion to 100 billion, to 150 billion years to form in a direct challenge to current age estimates of the age of the Universe following the Big Bang. The huge Sloan Great Wall spans over one billion light years. The Coma cluster (image above) is one of the largest observed structures in the Universe, containing over 10,000 galaxies and extending more than 1.37 billion light years in length. Current theories of "dark energy" and "great attractors" have been developed to explain why a created universe did not spread out uniformly at the same speed and in the same spoke-like directions as predicted by theory. But as Sean Carroll of the Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics at Cal Tech is fond of saying, "We don't have a clue." Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Lord Rees, says some of the cosmos’s biggest mysteries, like the Big Bang and even the nature of our own self awareness, might never be resolved. Rees, who is also President of the Royal Society, says that a correct basic theory of the universe might be present, but may be just too tough for human beings’ brains to comprehend.