- #1
lark
- 163
- 0
Penrose says in “Cycles of Time” that rest mass isn't exactly a Casimir operator of the de Sitter group, so a very slow decay of rest mass isn't out of the question in our universe.
If rest mass is strictly conserved, should it be a Casimir operator of the de Sitter group?
Decay of rest mass is crucial for Penrose's “conformal cyclic cosmology” theory, so how strong is this argument that rest mass isn't exactly a Casimir operator?
thanks
Laura
If rest mass is strictly conserved, should it be a Casimir operator of the de Sitter group?
Decay of rest mass is crucial for Penrose's “conformal cyclic cosmology” theory, so how strong is this argument that rest mass isn't exactly a Casimir operator?
thanks
Laura