At the center of a black hole is it the same time as the moment of its formation?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Are you asking if the Universe as a whole has some overall angular momentum?

a) The Universe is infinite. The only meaningful question is whether the visible Universe has some angular momentum. There is no reason I can see that it wouldn't, but as far as I can see it would be fairly small. Mass concentrations like planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies etc. "spin" because they have collapsed, and by conservation of angular momentum they have to move more quickly. The same is not true of the visible Universe.

b) It is extremely difficult to measure lateral velocities relative to us. AFAIK there is no reliable way to measure the angular momentum of the visible Universe.

On the macro scale isn't the universe expanding so wouldn't the amount of angular moment decrease as it expands?

I still remember fondly my 9th grade physics teacher explaining angular momentum. The wheel rim from a 1950's Hudson Hornet had "spinning hubcaps" so when the car was driving the hub caps would remain stationary. My teacher brought one of these into the classroom and it made a perfect man sized spinning table which one of the students stood on top of and then the teacher spun him around with weights in each hand. If he held his arms out he spun more slowly and if he pulled his arms close to his body then he spun faster.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The problem is that the compactification does not have to be simple. The simple cases are obviously the best studied (spherical, for instance) but more complicated ones can be designed to evade current detection.

Wasn't there a semi-recent experiment where the data fit the model of the universe having the topology of a dodecahedron with opposite faces identified?

[KrazyHorse]

From what I know of it, the positive results from that can be entirely explained by foreground contamination of WMAP data.

Again, this is not my area of research, but AFAIK there is no general acceptance of non-trivial topologies yet.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Again, this is not my area of research

Hey KH, I don't remember what exactly your area of research is. Can you reefresh my memory?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


On the macro scale isn't the universe expanding so wouldn't the amount of angular moment decrease as it expands

Classically, the angular momentum will remain constant. The velocities would decrease.

From a GR perspective, I actually don't know what would happen. I've never tried to add angular momentum in to the FRW metric.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by PLATO


Hey KH, I don't remember what exactly your area of research is. Can you reefresh my memory?

I did some CMB stuff for about a year, but starting 1.5 years ago I've been focused on high energy theory (specifically Higgs and low-energy supersymmetry phenomenology)

[KrazyHorse]

Most specifically, the phenomenology of new light degrees of freedom which couple to the Higgs.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I did some CMB stuff for about a year, but starting 1.5 years ago I've been focused on high energy theory (specifically Higgs and low-energy supersymmetry phenomenology)

ahh...that's right. I think there was a pretty cool thread a while back about this. Thanks!

[PLATO]

BTW...Is the LHC still supposed to be fully operational this summer?

Are you scheduled to do any experiments there? If so, are they releated to actually detecting a Higgs?

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not an experimentalist. They take data. I tell them how to look through their data to find interesting things.

And yes, my work could possibly have a direct impact on the detectability of the Higgs at the LHC

As far as when they're actually going to turn on, I'm on the outside. Not privy to their internal information.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm not an experimentalist. They take data. I tell them how to look through their data to find interesting things.

And yes, my work could possibly have a direct impact on the detectability of the Higgs.

So you could actually be the one to confirm the existence of the Higgs even if you didn't do the actual experiments.

Do you realize that you are on the edge of obtaining physics immortality?

Every physics student in the world will read your name in their text books for the next 200 years.

[KrazyHorse]

If you add a light degree of freedom which couples significantly to the Higgs then today's standard searches will not find the Higgs.

You need to start looking for different things than you were before. I've shown that for a certain set of theories you may be able to see the Higgs via certain novel signals at the LHC. I will not be more specific than that, as some of the research is not yet published.

[PLATO]

Yes...you wouldn't want Ron Madaras stealing things off Poly!

I am an interested layman though and any developments you could keep us abreast of would be cool!

[Ecthy]

I had a Higgs this morning, only went away after I had a glass of water.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
From what I know of it, the positive results from that can be entirely explained by foreground contamination of WMAP data.

Again, this is not my area of research, but AFAIK there is no general acceptance of non-trivial topologies yet.

What's foreground contamination?