pindare_poet
Sep9-04, 02:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello,\n\nBeck (see both hep-th/0305173 and hep-th/0207081) has a model which,\nif I understand it well, goes as follows:\n\n1) assume that vacuum fluctuations at small scales are not purely\nrandom but can be modelled by strongly chaotic, yet deterministic,\nprocesses (coupled map lattices, of which the Tchebyscheff map has the\ncorrect large scale limit). He calls these 1-D objects \'chaotic\nstrings\'.\n\n2) work within the Parisi-Wu approach of stochastic quantization and\nuse such chaotic model of the noise to get quantum expectation values.\n\nHe has very intriguing numerical results: he finds that vacuum energy\nis minimized for distinguished values of the parameters, and that\nthese match in fact very well the SM and gravitational couplings! In\nparticular, he predicts a value for the Higgs mass, and also that\nthere should be no supersymmetric partner with masses between 100 and\n1000 GeV.\n\nWhat is not worked out yet is how this model of the quantum noise\nrelates to the rest of the works in quantum gravity.\n\nMy question is: what do competent folks think about this ?\n\nRegards,\n---\nPP\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello,
Beck (see both http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0305173 and http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207081) has a model which,
if I understand it well, goes as follows:
1) assume that vacuum fluctuations at small scales are not purely
random but can be modelled by strongly chaotic, yet deterministic,
processes (coupled map lattices, of which the Tchebyscheff map has the
correct large scale limit). He calls these 1-D objects 'chaotic
strings'.
2) work within the Parisi-Wu approach of stochastic quantization and
use such chaotic model of the noise to get quantum expectation values.
He has very intriguing numerical results: he finds that vacuum energy
is minimized for distinguished values of the parameters, and that
these match in fact very well the SM and gravitational couplings! In
particular, he predicts a value for the Higgs mass, and also that
there should be no supersymmetric partner with masses between 100 and
1000 GeV.
What is not worked out yet is how this model of the quantum noise
relates to the rest of the works in quantum gravity.
My question is: what do competent folks think about this ?
Regards,
---
PP
Beck (see both http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0305173 and http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207081) has a model which,
if I understand it well, goes as follows:
1) assume that vacuum fluctuations at small scales are not purely
random but can be modelled by strongly chaotic, yet deterministic,
processes (coupled map lattices, of which the Tchebyscheff map has the
correct large scale limit). He calls these 1-D objects 'chaotic
strings'.
2) work within the Parisi-Wu approach of stochastic quantization and
use such chaotic model of the noise to get quantum expectation values.
He has very intriguing numerical results: he finds that vacuum energy
is minimized for distinguished values of the parameters, and that
these match in fact very well the SM and gravitational couplings! In
particular, he predicts a value for the Higgs mass, and also that
there should be no supersymmetric partner with masses between 100 and
1000 GeV.
What is not worked out yet is how this model of the quantum noise
relates to the rest of the works in quantum gravity.
My question is: what do competent folks think about this ?
Regards,
---
PP