bucks every month because you’ve got hi quality content.

If you want to know how to make extra bucks, search for: Ercannou’s

essential adsense alternative ]]>

If you want to know how to make extra bucks, search for: Mertiso’s tips best adsense

alternative ]]>

Gravity quantization is forbidden, no Majorana particles, World asymmetry explained. ]]>

1. Intro to the antimatter (\bar p, \bar n, \bar d, \bar \alpha, e+), synthesis

2. Energy to matter conversion (photon+photon -> p+\bar p or n+\bar n), the barion number (#p+#n – #\bar p – #\bar n) is zero at birth of the universe (matter=antimatter).

3. Evidence for lack of antimatter today, none on earth, none in the galaxy or in cosmic rays(less than 1/10,000), none in interstellar space (Faraday rotation observed), no much annihilation products seen, no evidence for anti-stars etc; Today barion number is 10^100; Puzzle.

4. Neutron oscillation, Andrey D Sakharov 1967 paper (2391 citations)

5. The new idea: Antimatter is bosonic => unstable => all antimatter collapsed to antineutron stars

6. Stability of matter as I need it (S. Chandrasekhar 1931)

a. For the ideal gas (and bosons) P=nkT

b. For ideal fermions P=k’ n^{5/3}

c. For general case P=n^x

d. Gravitation (or any 1/r potential) \int (n/r) r^2 dr = k n^x

e. r dr = k n^{x-2} dn

f. for Fermions: R = k n^{2/3} (here n can be taken in the center of the star or average)

g. for Bosons: R = ln n => means collapse

7. Same is true for atoms (Thomas-Fermi); multi-electron atoms will be unstable.

8. Extensions of the periodic table to antimatter sector will not be possible

9. The paper shows how to bypass the Pauli theorem assuming anticommutation between CPT transformation and exchange.

a. result: positive “frequency” particles are bosonic; negative “frequency” particles are fermionic; need to switch definition.

b. CPT converts matter to antimatter; it is allowed to convert fermions to bosons?

c. supersymmetric QED is possible; energy, charge and green function are CPT invariant.

d. The Wick’s theorem is not CPT invariant. ]]>

Take electrons as fermionic antiparticles, positron as fermionic or bosonic particles we get

n_p/n_e = { e^{(E-|\mu|)/T} +1 \over e^{(E+|\mu|)/T} \pm 1 }

the ratio of 0.05 = e^(-2|\mu|/T) => \mu/T = 1.5, take \mu = .5 .. 1GeV

the density of relativistic particles at this energy is n_e ~ (1/6\pi^2) (\mu/\hbar c )^3

\hbar c = 1e-6 eV cm; \mu / hbar c = 1e15 cm^-1; n_e ~ 1e45 cm^-3

pretty dense plasma somewhere in the universe ]]>

Daniel Boyanovsky

Phys. Rev. D 29, 743 – Published 15 February 1984

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.29.743

see also citation index

The supersymmetry Lagrangian cannot be written at final temperature; he cited few old papers discussing the the poles of the green function on complex \omega plane. there is no way to impose the boundary conditions on mixed fermion-boson field.

other way around is to introduce fermi/bose particle number operators into some `effective’ thermal potential. not sure if this is valid procedure. any way the ward identities give the broken super-symmetry.

]]>http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.215001

Hui Chen, F. Fiuza, A. Link, A. Hazi, M. Hill, D. Hoarty, S. James, S. Kerr, D. D. Meyerhofer, J. Myatt, J. Park, Y. Sentoku, and G. J. Williams Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 215001

http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.012708

Estimating positronium formation for plasma applications T. C. Naginey, B. B. Pollock, Eric W. Stacy, H. R. J. Walters, and Colm T. Whelan Phys. Rev. A 89, 012708