Sunday, May 14, 2017

Galactic blackholes as a test for TGD view about formation of galaxies?

Galactic blackholes (or blackhole like entities) could serve as a test for the proposal. Galactic blackholes are supermassive having masses measured in billions of solar masses. These blackhole like entities is thought to grow rapidly as matter falls into them. In this process light is emitted and makes the blackhole a quasar (see this), one of the most luminous objects in the Universe.

TGD based model predicts that the seed of galaxy would be formed in the reconnection of cosmic strings and consist of dark matter. If galaxies are formed in this manner, the blackhole like entity formed in the reconnection point would get its mass from cosmic strings as dark mass and visible galactic mass would result from dark matter "boiling" to ordinary particles (as in the decay of inflaton field to particles). Matter from cosmic strings could flow to the reconnection point and a fraction of antimatter would remain inside cosmic string as dark matter.

During the "boiling" period intense radiation is generated, which leads to ask whether an interpretation as a formation of a quasar makes sense. The flow of matter would be from the blackhole like object rather than into it as in the ordinary model of quasar. Quasar like objects could of course be created also by the standard mechanism as ordinary matter starts to fall into the galactic dark blackhole and transforms to dark matter. This would occur much later than the formation of galactic blackhole like objects and galaxies around them.

Now three odd-ball quasars have been discovered in the early universe (13 billion years in past, less than billion years after Big Bang) by Eilers et al (see this). The authors conclude that the most compelling scenario is that these quasars have been shining only about 105 years. This time is not enough to build the mass that they have. This challenges the standard mechanism for the formation of galactic blackholes. What about the situation in TGD Universe? Could the odd-balls quasars be quasars in the usual sense of the word being created as ordinary matter starts to fall to the galactic dark matter blackhole and transforms to dark matter? Quantum phase transition would be
involved.

See the article Breaking of CP, P, and T in cosmological scales in TGD Universe.

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Excess of cosmic ray antiprotons as a further support for M89 hadron physics?

I received a link to a quite interesting popular article telling about surplus of antiprotons from cosmic rays interpreted in terms of dark matter particles decays to protons and antiprotons. The article mentions two articles summarizing essentially similar experimental findings.

The first article Novel Dark Matter Constraints from Antiprotons in Light of AMS-02 is published in Phys Rev Letters. The abstract is here.

We evaluate dark matter (DM) limits from cosmic-ray antiproton observations using the recent precise AMS-02 measurements. We properly take into account cosmic-ray propagation uncertainties, fitting DM and propagation parameters at the same time and marginalizing over the latter. We find a significant indication of a DM signal for DM masses near 80 GeV, with a hadronic annihilation cross section close to the thermal value,
< σ v>∼ 2× 10-26 cm3/s. Intriguingly, this signal is compatible with the DM interpretation of the Galactic center gamma-ray excess. Confirmation of the signal will require a more accurate study of the systematic uncertainties, i.e., the antiproton production cross section, and the modeling of the effect of solar modulation. Interpreting the AMS-02 data in terms of upper limits on hadronic DM annihilation, we obtain strong constraints excluding a thermal annihilation cross section for DM masses below about 50 GeV and in the range between approximately 150 and 500 GeV, even for conservative propagation scenarios. Except for the range around ∼ 80 GeV, our limits are a factor of ∼ 4 stronger than the limits from gamma-ray observations of dwarf galaxies.

The second article Possible Dark Matter Annihilation Signal in the AMS-02 Antiproton Data is also published in Phys Rev Letters . The abstract is here.

Using the latest AMS-02 cosmic-ray antiproton flux data, we search for a potential dark matter annihilation signal. The background parameters about the propagation, source injection, and solar modulation are not assumed a priori but based on the results inferred from the recent B/C ratio and proton data measurements instead. The possible dark matter signal is incorporated into the model self-consistently under a Bayesian framework. Compared with the astrophysical background-only hypothesis, we find that a dark matter signal is favored. The rest mass of the dark matter particles is ∼ 20-80 GeV, and the velocity-averaged hadronic annihilation cross section is about (0.2-5) × 10-26 cm3/s, in agreement with that needed to account for the Galactic center GeV excess and/or the weak GeV emission from dwarf spheroidal galaxies Reticulum 2 and Tucana III. Tight constraints on the dark matter annihilation models are also set in a wide mass region.

The proposal is that decay of dark matter particles possibly arriwing from the Galactic center produce proton-antiproton pairs. The mass of the decaying particles would be between 40-80 GeV. I have been talking for years about M89 hadron physics - a scaled up copy of ordinary hadron physics with mass scale 512 times higher than that of ordinary hadron physics. The pion of this physics would have mass about 69 GeV (by scaling from the mass of ordinary pion by factor 512). There are indications for two handfuls of bumps with masses of mesons of ordinary hadron physics scaled up by 512 (see this).

These scaled up pions could be produced abundantly in collisions of cosmic rays in atmosphere (situation would be analogous to that at LHC). It would not be surprising if they would producealso proton and antiproton pairs in their decays? This view about the origin of the dark pions is different from the usual view about dark matter. Dark pions would be created by the cosmic rays arriving from galactic center and colliding with nuclear matter in the Earth's atmosphere rather than arriving from the galactic center.

Can one say that they represent dark matter and in what sense? The TGD based proposal explaining various bumps observed at LHC and having masses 512 times those of ordinary mesons assumes that they are produced at quantum criticality and are dark in TGD sense meaning that the value of effective Planck constant for them is heff=n× h, n=512. Scaled up Compton length would realize long range quantum correlations at criticality. Dark mesons at criticality would be hybrids of ordinary and scaled up mesons: Compton length would same as for ordinary mesons but mass would 512 times higher: Esau's hands and Jacob's voice. This would give a precise meaning to what it means for two phases to be same at quantum criticality: half of both.

See the article M89 Hadron Physics and Quantum Criticality or the chapter New Physics Predicted by TGD: I of "p-Adic length scale hypothesis".

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Anomalous J/Ψ production and TGD

A new anomaly has been discovered by LHCb collaboration. The production of J/Ψ mesons in proton-proton collisions in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN does not agree with the predictions made by a widely used computer simulation, Pythia. The result comes from CERN's LHCb experiment studying the jets of hadrons created as protons collide at 13 TeV cm energy.

These jets contain large numbers of J/Ψ mesons consisting of charmed quark and a charmed anti-quark. The LHCb measured the ratio of the momentum carried by the J/Ψ mesons to the momentum carried by the entire jet. They were also able to discriminate between J/Ψ mesons created promptly (direct/prompt production) in the collision and J/Ψ mesons that were created after the collision by the decay of charmed hadrons produced by jets
(jet production).

Analysis of the data demonstrates that PYTHIA - a Monte Carlo simulation used to model high-energy particle collisions - does not predict correctly the momentum fraction carried by prompt J/Ψ mesons. The conclusion is that the apparent shortcomings of PYTHIA could have a significant effect on how particle physics is done because the simulation is used both in the design of collider detectors and also to determine which measurements are most likely to reveal information about physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. Heretic could go further and ask whether the problem is really with Pythia: could it be with QCD?

The TGD explanation for the finding is same as that for strangeness enhancement in p-p collisions in the same energy range at which the de-confinement phase transition is predicted to occur in QCD. In TGD one would have quantum criticality for a phase transition from the ordinary M107 hadron physics to M89 hadron physics with hadronic mass scale by a factor 512 higher than for ordinary hadrons. The gluons and quarks at quantum criticality would be dark in the sense of having heff/h=n=512. Also 1/n-fractional quarks and gluons are possible.

TGD predicts besides ordinary bosons two additional boson generations, whose family charge matrices in the space of fermion families are hermitian, diagonal and orthogonal to each other to the unit charge matrix for ordinary bosons, and most naturally same for all bosons. The charge matrices for higher generations necessarily break the universality of fermion couplings. The model for strangeness enhancement and the violation of lepton universality in B-meson decays predicts that the bosonic family charge matrix for second generation favours decays to third generation quarks and dis-favors decays to quarks of first and second generation. This predicts that the rate for prompt production of J/Ψ is lower and jet production rate from b-hadron decays is higher than predicted by QCD.

See the chapter New Physics predicted by TGD: I and the article Phase transition from M107 hadron physics to M89 hadron physics as counterpart for de-confinement phase transition? .

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Phase transition from M107 hadron physics to M89 hadron physics as counterpart for de-confinement phase transition?

Quark gluon plasma assigned to de-confinement phase transition predicted by QCD has turned out to be a problematic notion. The original expectation was that quark gluon plasma (QGP) would be created in heavy ion collisions. A candidate for QGP was discovered already at RHIC but did not have quite the expected properties such as black body spectrum behaving like an ideal liquid with long range correlations between charged particle pairs created in the collision. Then LHC discovered that this phase is created even in proton-heavy nucleus collisions. Now this phase have been discovered even in proton-proton collisions. This is something unexpected and both a challenge and opportunity to TGD.

In TGD framework QGP is replaced with quantum critical state appearing in the transition from ordinary hadron physics characterized by Mersenne prime M107 to dark variant of M89 hadron physics characterized by heff/h=n=512. At criticality partons are hybrids of M89 and M107 partons with Compton length of ordinary partons and mass m(89)≤ 512 m(107). Inequality follows from possible 1/512 fractionization of mass and other quantum numbers. The observed strangeness enhancement can be understood as a violation of quark universality if the gluons of M89 hadron physics correspond to second generation of gluons whose couplings necessarily break quark universality.

The violation of quark universality would be counterpart for the violation of lepton universality and the simplest hypothesis that the charge matrices acting on family triplets are same for quarks and leptons allows to understand also the strangeness enhancement qualitatively.

See the chapter New Physics predicted by TGD: I of "p-Adic length scale hypothesis" and the article Phase transition from M107 hadron physics to M89 hadron physics as counterpart for de-confinement phase transition? .

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Two steps towards understanding of the origins of life

Two highly interesting findings providing insights about the origins of life have emerged and it is interesting to see how they fit to the TGD inspired vision.

The group led by Thomas Carell has made an important step in the understanding the origins of life (see this). They have identified a mechanism leading to the generation of purines A and G which besides pyrimidines A,T (U) are the basic building bricks of DNA and RNA. The crucial step is to make the solution involved slightly acidic by adding protons. For year later I learned that a variant of Urey-Miller experiment with simulation of shock waves perhaps generated by extraterrestrial impacts using laser pulses generates formamide and this in turn leads to the generation of all 4 RNA bases (see the popular article and article).

These findings represent a fascinating challenge for TGD inspired quantum biology. The proposal is that formamide is the unique amide, which can form stable bound states with dark protons and crucial for the development of life as dark matter-visible matter symbiosis. Pollack effect would generate electron rich exclusions zones and dark protons at magnetic flux tubes. Dark protons would bind stably with unique amine leaving its chemical properties intact. This would lead to the generation of purines and the 4 RNA bases. This would be starting point of life as symbiosis of ordinary matter and dark matter as large heff/h=n phases of ordinary matter generated at quantum criticality induced by say extraterrestrial impacts. The TGD based model for cold fusion and the recent results about superdense phase of hydrogen identifiable in TGD framework as dark proton sequences giving rise to dark nuclear strings provides support for this picture.

There is however a problem: a reductive environment (with ability to donate electrons) is needed in these experiments: it seems that early atmosphere was not reductive. In TGD framework one can imagine two - not mutually exclusive - solutions of the problem. Either life evolved in underground oceans, where oxygen concentration was small or Pollack effect gave rise to negatively charged and thus reductive exclusion zones (EZs) as protons were transferred to dark protons at magnetic flux tubes. The function of UV radiation, catalytic action, and of shock waves would be generation of quantum criticality inducing the creation of EZs making possible dark heff/h=n phases.

For details and background see the article Two steps towards understanding of the origins of life or the chapter Evolution in Many-Sheeted Space-Time.

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Breaking of lepton universality seems to be real

The evidence for the violation of lepton number universality is accumulating at LHC. I have written about the violation of lepton number universality in the decays of B and K mesons already earlier explaining it in terms of two higher generations of electroweak bosons. The existence of free fermion generations having topological explanation in TGD can be regarded formally as SU(3) triplet. One can speak of family-SU(3).

Electroweak bosons and gluons belong to singlet and octet of family-SU(3) and the natural assumption is that only singlet (ordinary gauge bosons) and two SU(3) neutral states of octet are light. One would have effectively 3 generations of electroweak bosons and gluons. There charge matrices would be orthogonal with respect to the inner product defined by trace so that both quark and lepton universality would be broken in the same manner. The strongest assumption is that the charge matrices in flavor space are same for all weak bosons. The CKM mixing for neutrinos complicates this picture by affecting the branching rations of charged weak bosons.

Quite recently I noticed that second generation of Z boson could explain the different values of proton charge radius determined from the hydrogen and muonium atoms as one manifestation of the violation of universality (see this). The concept of charge matrix is discussed in more detail in this post.

I learned quite recently about new data concerning B meson anomalies. The experimental ideas are explained here. It is interesting to look at the results in more detail from TGD point of view..

  1. There is about 4.0 σ deviation from $τ/l$ universality (l=μ,e) in b→ c transitions. In terms of branching ratios ones has:

    R(D*)=Br(B→ D*→τντ)/Br(B→ D*l) =0.316+/- 0.016+/- 0.010 ,

    R(D) =Br(B→ Dτντ)/Br(B→ lνl) =0.397+/- 0.040+/- 0.028 ,

    The corresponding SM values are R(D*)|SM= 0.252+/- 0.003 and R(D)|SM=.300+/- .008. My understanding is that the normalization factor in the ratio involves total rate to D*l, l=μ, e involving only single neutrino in final state whereas the τν decays involve 3 neutrinos due to the neutrino pair from τ implying broad distribution for the missing mass.

    The decays to τ ντ are clearly preferred as if there were an exotic W boson preferring to decay τν over lν , l=e,μ. In TGD it could be second generation W boson. Note that CKM mizing of neutrinos could also affect the branching ratios.

  2. Since these decays are mediated at tree level in the SM, relatively large new physics contributions are necessary to explain these deviations. Observation of 2.6 σ deviation of μ/e universality in the dilepton invariant mass bin 1 GeV2≤ q2≤ 6 GeV2 in b→ s transitions:

    R(K)=Br(B→ Kμ+μ-)/Br(B→ K e+e-) =0.745+0.090/-0.074+/- 0.038

    deviate from the SM prediction R(K)|SM=1.0003+/- 0.0001.

    This suggests the existence of the analog of Z boson preferring to decay to e+e- rather than μ+μ- pairs.

    If the charge matrices acting on dynamical family-SU(3) fermion triplet do not depend on electroweak bosons and neutrino CKM mixing is neglected for the decays of second generation W, the data for branching ratios of D bosons implies that the decays to e+e- and τ+τ- should be favored over the decays to μ+μ-. Orthogonality of the charge matrices plus the above data could allow to fix them rather precisely from data. It might be that one must take into account the CKM mixing.

  3. CMS recently also searched for the decay h→ τμ and found a non-zero result of Br(h→ τμ)=0.84+0.39/-0.37 , which disagrees by about 2.4 σ from 0, the SM value. I have proposed an explanation for this finding in terms of CKM mixing for leptons. h would decay to W+W- pair, which would exchange neutrino transforming to τμ pair by neutrino CKM mixing.

  4. According to the reference, for Z, the lower bound for the mass is 2.9 TeV, just the TGD prediction if it corresponds to Gaussian Mersenne MG,79=(1+i)79 so that the mass would be 32 times the mass of ordinary Z boson! It seem that we are at the verge of the verification of one key prediction of TGD.

For background see the chapter New Physics predicted by TGD: I of "p-Adic length scale hypothesis".

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Getting even more quantitative about CP violation

The twistor lift of TGD forces to introduce the analog of Kähler form for M4, call it J. J is covariantly constant self-dual 2-form, whose square is the negative of the metric. There is a moduli space for these Kähler forms parametrized by the direction of the constant and parallel magnetic and electric fields defined by J. J partially characterizes the causal diamond (CD): hence the notation J(CD) and can be interpreted as a geometric correlate for fixing quantization axis of energy (rest system) and spin.

Kähler form defines classical U(1) gauge field and there are excellent reasons to expect that it gives rise to U(1) quanta coupling to the difference of B-L of baryon and lepton numbers. There is coupling strength α1 associated with this interaction. The first guess that it could be just Kähler coupling strength leads to unphysical predictions: α1 must be much smaller. Here I do not yet completely understand the situation. One can however check whether the simplest guess is consistent with the empirical inputs from CP breaking of mesons and antimatter asymmetry. This turns out to be the case.

One must specify the value of α1 and the scaling factor transforming J(CD) having dimension length squared as tensor square root of metric to dimensionless U(1) gauge field F= J(CD)/S. This leads to a series of questions.

How to fix the scaling parameter S?

  1. The scaling parameter relating J(CD) and F is fixed by flux quantization implying that the flux of J(CD) is the area of sphere S2 for the twistor space M4× S2. The gauge field is obtained as F=J/S, where S= 4π R2(S2) is the area of S2.

  2. Note that in Minkowski coordinates the length dimension is by convention shifted from the metric to linear Minkowski coordinates so that the magnetic field B1 has dimension of inverse length squared and corresponds to J(CD)/SL2, where L is naturally be taken to the size scale of CD defining the unit length in Minkowski coordinates. The U(1) magnetic flux would the signed area using L2 as a unit.

How R(S2) relates to Planck length lP? lP is either the radius lP=R of the twistor sphere S2 of the twistor space T=M4× S2 or the circumference lP= 2π R(S2) of the geodesic of S2. Circumference is a more natural identification since it can be measured in Riemann geometry whereas the operational definition of the radius requires imbedding to Euclidian 3-space.

How can one fix the value of U(1) coupling strength α1? As a guideline one can use CP breaking in K and B meson systems and the parameter characterizing matter-antimatter symmetry.

  1. The recent experimental estimate for so called Jarlskog parameter characterizing the CP breaking in kaon system is J≈ 3.0× 10-5. For B mesons CP breading is about 50 times larger than for kaons and it is clear that Jarlskog invariant does not distinguish between different meson so that it is better to talk about orders of magnitude only.

  2. Matter-antimatter asymmetry is characterized by the number r=nB/nγ ∼ 10-10 telling the ratio of the baryon density after annihilation to the original density. There is about one baryon 10 billion photons of CMB left in the recent Universe.

Consider now the identification of α1.
  1. Since the action is obtained by dimensional reduction from the 6-D Kähler action, one could argue α1= αK. This proposal leads to unphysical predictions in atomic physics since neutron-electron U(1) interaction scales up binding energies dramatically.

    U(1) part of action can be however regarded a small perturbation characterized by the parameter ε= R2(S2)/R2(CP2), the ratio of the areas of twistor spheres of T(M4) and T(CP2). One can however argue that since the relative magnitude of U(1) term and ordinary Kähler action is given by ε, one has α1=ε× αK so that the coupling constant evolution for α1 and αK would be identical.

  2. ε indeed serves in the role of coupling constant strength at classical level. αK disappears from classical field equations at the space-time level and appears only in the conditions for the super-symplectic algebra but ε appears in field equations since the Kähler forms of J resp. CP2 Kähler form is proportional to R2(S2) resp. R2(CP2) times the corresponding U(1) gauge field. R(S2) appears in the definition of 2-bein for R2(S2) and therefore in the modified gamma matrices and modified Dirac equation. Therefore ε1/2=R(S2)/R(CP2) appears in modified Dirac equation as required by CP breaking manifesting itself in CKM matrix.

    NTU for the field equations in the regions, where the volume term and Kähler action couple to each other demands that ε and ε1/2 are rational numbers, hopefully as simple as possible. Otherwise there is no hope about extremals with parameters of the polynomials appearing in the solution in an arbitrary extension of rationals and NTU is lost. Transcendental values of ε are definitely excluded. The most stringent condition ε=1 is also unphysical. ε= 22r is favoured number theoretically.

Concerning the estimate for ε it is best to use the constraints coming from p-adic mass calculations.
  1. p-Adic mass calculations predict electron mass as

    me= hbar/R(CP2)(5+Y)1/2 .

    Expressing me in terms of Planck mass mP and assuming Y=0 (Y∈ (0,1)) gives an estimate for lP/R(CP2) as

    lPR(CP2) ≈ 2.0× 10-4 .

  2. From lP= 2π R(S2) one obtains estimate for ε, α1, g1=(4πα1)1/2 assuming
    αK≈ α≈ 1/137 in electron length scale.

    ε = 2-30 ≈ 1.0× 10-9 ,

    α1=εαK ≈ 6.8× 10-12 ,

    g1= (4πα11/2 ≈ 9.24 × 10-6 .

There are two options corresponding to lP= R(S2) and lP =2π R(S2). Only the length of the geodesic of S2 has meaning in the Riemann geometry of S2 whereas the radius of S2 has operational meaning only if S2 is imbedded to E3. Hence lP= 2π R(S2) is more plausible option.

For ε=2-30 the value of lP2/R2(CP2) is lP2/R2(CP2)=(2π)2 × R2(S2)/R2(CP2) ≈ 3.7× 10-8. lP/R(S2) would be a transcendental number but since it would not be a fundamental constant but appear only at the QFT-GRT limit of TGD, this would not be a problem.

One can make order of magnitude estimates for the Jarlskog parameter J and the fraction r= n(B)/n(γ). Here it is not however clear whether one should use ε or α1 as the basis of the estimate

  1. The estimate based on ε gives

    J∼ ε1/2 ≈ 3.2× 10-5 ,

    r∼ ε ≈ 1.0× 10-9 .

    The estimate for J happens to be very near to the recent experimental value J≈ 3.0× 10-5. The estimate for r is by order of magnitude smaller than the empirical value.

  2. The estimate based on α1 gives


    J∼ g1 ≈ 0.92× 10-5 ,

    r∼ α1 ≈ .68× 10-11 .

    The estimate for J is excellent but the estimate for r by more than order of magnitude smaller than the empirical value. One explanation is that αK has discrete coupling constant evolution and increases in short scales and could have been considerably larger in the scale characterizing the situation in which matter-antimatter asymmetry was generated.

Atomic nuclei have baryon number equal the sum B= Z+N of proton and neutron numbers and neutral atoms have B= N. Only hydrogen atom would be also U(1) neutral. The dramatic prediction of U(1) force is that neutrinos might not be so weakly interacting particles as has been thought. If the quanta of U(1) force are not massive, a new long range force is in question. U(1) quanta could become massive via U(1) super-conductivity causing Meissner effect. As found, U(1) part of action can be however regarded a small perturbation characterized by the parameter ε= R2(S2)/R2(CP2). One can however argue that since the relative magnitude of U(1) term and ordinary Kähler action is given by ε, one has α1=ε× αK.

Quantal U(1) force must be also consistent with atomic physics. The value of the parameter α1 consistent with the size of CP breaking of K mesons and with matter antimatter asymmetry is α1= εαK = 2-30αK.

  1. Electrons and baryons would have attractive interaction, which effectively transforms the em charge Z of atom Zeff= rZ, r=1+(N/Z)ε1, ε11/α=ε × αK/α≈ ε for αK≈ α predicted to hold true in electron length scale. The parameter

    s=(1 + (N/Z)ε)2 -1= 2(N/Z)ε +(N/Z)2ε2

    would characterize the isotope dependent relative shift of the binding energy scale.

    The comparison of the binding energies of hydrogen isotopes could provide a stringent bounds of the value of α1. For lP= 2π R(S2) option one would have α1=2-30αK ≈ .68× 10-11 and s≈ 1.4× 10-10. s is by order of magnitude smaller than α4≈ 2.9× 10-9 corrections from QED (see this). The predicted differences between the binding energy scales of isotopes of hydrogen might allow to test the proposal.



  2. B=N would be neutralized by the neutrinos of the cosmic background. Could this occur even at the level of single atom or does one have a plasma like state? The ground state binding energy of neutrino atoms would be α12mν/2 ∼ 10-24 eV for mν =.1 eV! This is many many orders of magnitude below the thermal energy of cosmic neutrino background estimated to be about 1.95× 10-4 eV (see this). The Bohr radius would be hbar/(α1mν) ∼ 106 meters and same order of magnitude as Earth radius. Matter should be U(1) plasma. U(1) superconductor would be second option.

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

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

Articles and other material related to TGD.