Does Singularity Exist Or/And Is Primal Cosmological Aberration is the cause of all

existence?

∗
Garv Lodha

Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai 400076, India

(for STAR Collaboration)

Abstract
Endeavor is to explore whether there is:
1. ’underlying’ or ’global’
2. ’uniform’ or ’homogeneous’
symmetry
or
are there some specks of:
1. ’localized’ asymmetry or local ’non-uniformity’
in an overall uniform fabric.

Considering the conditions produced in high-energy collisions to be analogous to the pri-

mordial state of the universe, we investigate symmetry by measuring the sphericity of the
√
events and asymmetry by computing the particle-correlations in Au+Au collisions at sN N =
200GeV in STAR.

Keywords: symmetry, topological defects, quantum fluctuations, spiral cosmos

∗
Electronic address: garv.lodha@gmail.com

1
Contents
A What we intend to probe 4
A.1 Singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A.2 Cosmological Aberration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A.3 Singularity and Cosmological Aberration - Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B In search of The Truth 7

B.1 ’Symmerty’ analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.2 ’Asymmetry’ analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

C Conclusion 14

Acknowledgement 15

A Graphical Representation 22

B Event Selection 23

C Experimental Set-Up 24

D Results 25

E Mémoire 59

2
List of Figures
1 Sphericity of the events for ’Hard’ Processes and ’Soft’ Processes’. . . . . . . 8
2 Sphericity of the events containing ’Anti-He’ and ’He’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 Transphericity of the events for ’Hard’ Processes and ’Soft’ Processes. . . . . 10
4 Transphericity of the events containing ’Anti-He’ and ’He’. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 Two-Particle Event-Correlation for ”All Events” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6 Two-Particle Event-Correlation for ”Selected He/Anti-He Events” . . . . . . 13

3
A What we intend to probe
In the following subsections, we try to give objective interpretations of the terms, the ’Sin-
gularity’ and an ’Aberration’, and reason out how this aberration can be the condicio sine
qua non for the sustenance of the optical existence. Furthermore, effort is made to connect
the dots between already existing ideas and to present the theoretical basis for the physics
analysis undertaken in the subsequent section.

A.1 Singularity
Notion of everything emerges from nothing[1, 2] and converges to nothing has been proposed
earlier [3, 4, 5, 6]. Gel Mann said once, most profound equation of physics must also be most
elegant , simplistic and beautiful. It seems that most profound equation is governed by an
idea of singularity, which has the ability to explain many phenomenon and address many
conundrums.
This is very much inspired from the quantum notion of singularity, acoording to which if
subject(’observer’) merges with an object(’electron’), double-slit phenomenon ceases. More
simplistically, this perception of singularity can be viewed as writing Mandarin(’phonetic’)
in English(’script’) or Japanese in French or Arabic in Sanskrit.
Singularity can also be contemplated as ’effects’ being nullified by its ’cause’(classical )
or in some cases, even effects cancelling out each other to give an impression of causeless
existence(quantum). This mesmerizing and ubiquitious law of nature to nullify, may have
local violations, but globally, it seems cosmos finds some ways to gratify it. This may be
termed as ’global fairness’.
For this purpose, phenomenons such as lamb-shift and black-hole radiation are quite
exemplary[7, 8], which give us the view of a cosmic system wherein if it takes something, it
has to give another thing. Some work has already be done to corroborate the fact that the
zero-point quantum fluctuations underlying these phenomenons, exert significant influence
on the experimental measurements[9, 10]. Casimir force, consequence of the depletion in the
zero-point energy density between the two juxtaposed metallic surfaces due to reduction in
the particle-antiparticle pairs[11, 12], is the most cited example of the quantum fluctuations,
and can be empirically testified[13].
Here, singularity can also be interpreted as fountain head of the emergence of the optical
existence. Conclusions and models like merging of elementary-particle forces at high temper-
ature conditions[14], holographic view of the universe[15, 16] offer synonymous interpertation
of the singularity.

(S)Impli(fi)cations: Considering above connotations of the singularity, idea of a cyclic(or a

oscillating) universe need not be much digressive[17, 5]. Based on above notion of singularity,
model of the cosmos can be speculated to be governed by the two postulates:

4
 1. Net Entropy = 0
Spiral Cosmos: Inspired by the global fairness and to satiate the above condition, the only
geometry which nature seems to favour and is in consistent with quantum laws is ’spiral’
structure, in which universes are arranged transversally along the spiral curve, wherein
each universe is to be viewed as asymptotically flat space.
If we consider such structure of the cosmos, validity of this postulate can be elucidated
by considering the cosmos in which each universe exhibits different degrees of order or
’specialness’ [18], s.t., overall probability at every instant, approaches unity, propelling
Scosmos [= kB ln(Ω)] towards zero. Also this viewpoint can be further reinforced by con-
sidering the universes, along the spiral in a radially outward direction, to be entangled,
such that,
Su1 + Su2 + ... + Sun < Su1+u2+...+un ,
where, Sui denotes the entropy of each universe.
This typical property is exhibited by entangled systems, wherein, entropy of the com-
posite of the constituent factor systems can be less than the sum of the entropies of the
individual factor system.
2. Net Mass-Energy = 0
Although, there has been speculations that net negative gravitational potential energy
should be equal to the net positive energy contributed by contents of the universe, but
they have not been theoretically verified.
Also, other experimental evidences as measurement of antiparticle-to-particle ratio in
relativistic heavy-ion collision experiments(hereafter, referred as RHICE), suggesting
the decrease in the magnitude of this ratio as we move towards the heavier- mass
particle[19], observation of no anisotropy in the positron-electron ratio by AMS[20],
rare observation of anti-nuclei of heavier elements as helium, lithium etc. in RHICE[21]
may own their explaination to this second postulate.
Certainly, we need to have more lucid understanding of overall connectedness of this
asymptotically flat universe and dark matter and dark energy contained in it, to venerate the
above postulates.

A.2 Cosmological Aberration

Idea of large-scale structure formations such as galaxies, quasars etc. is theorized to be the
resultant of these perturbations occuring at regular intervals[22]. These perturbations in the
the overall homogeneous symmetric fabric, generally leads to the topological defects which
seem to arise wherever local symmetry is violated[23]. Here, these topological defects can be
thought of as a anomalous behaviour displayed by otherwise normal scalar fields leading to
the formation of complex structures. Technically, this anomalous behaviour is also referred
as a ’frustrated’ behaviour.

5
 Effects such as separation of opposite charges in the heavy-ion collisions, complex structure
formation of crystal lattices are usually attributed to these local topological defects.
It is these perturbations that we refer herein as aberration, which is considered to be the
reason for the observed local imperfections or asymmetry.

A.3 Singularity and Cosmological Aberration - Both

Space and time being the manifestations of mind and the relative terms, ’present’ for the life
on the earth is the ’past’ for the life on other distant planets and view of the different stars
in the night sky, is the past state of the universe.
Considering different stars in space as different time zones, since them being located at
different light years away, if one happens to visit a particular star, it will be equivalent to
visiting different time units in future.
For example, travelling to Proxima Centaury at the ’present’ moment would be like trav-
elling 4.2 years in the future from ’now’. Or travelling to Sirius A at the ’present’ moment
would be like travelling 8.6 years in the future from ’now’. Or more closely, travelling to ’Sun’
at the ’present’ moment would be like visiting 500 seconds(8.34 minutes) in the future from
’now’.
From above viewpoint, it may be deduced that, time has local relevance, but when refer-
ring at cosmic level, its meaning gets sublimated.
Above ideas are very much the basis of the gauge theories, where gauge is chosen selec-
tively, such that, locally variant quantities remain globally invariant[24]. Or to refer to system
thermodynamics, in which overall path integral of the work cycle is zero, though there may
be energy dissipation along the curve of a cycle.
To be specific, there can be localized energy violations(’quantum-fluctuations’) or non-
negative process entropies, but globally these quantities must be conserved.

6
B In search of The Truth
Bearing the above notions in mind, herein, we present the experimental analysis undertaken
to bring forth the reasonable distinction between the above two elucidated concepts.

B.1 ’Symmerty’ analysis

Symmetry, an artifact of the singularity, can be examined by measuring the isotropy of the
event-shapes.
Here, we present the event-shape analysis by sphericity method. Sphericity of the events
containing helium( or anti-helium) is measured to analyse the isotropy. This ’selective’ anal-
ysis is based on intuitive reasoning that any anomaly in the isotropy is reflected more promi-
nently in those collisions in which heavier nuclei is produced.

The Sphericity[25] is defined in terms of the eigen values, λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ λ3 (with λ1 +λ2 +λ3 =
1), of the sphericity tensor:
P α β
α,β p p
S = Pi i 2i , (1)
i |pi |

where α,β = 1,2,3 corresponds to the x, y and z projections of ith -particle momentum. The
sphericity of the event is then defined as:
3
S= (λ2 + λ3 ), (2)
2
so that, 0 ≤ S ≤ 1. A 2-jet event corresponds to S ≈ 0 and an isotropic event corresponds
to S ≈ 1.

7
’Sphericity’ Results:

Figure 1: Sphericity of the events for ’Hard’ Processes and ’Soft’ Processes’.

8
 Figure 2: Sphericity of the events containing ’Anti-He’ and ’He’.

Tran(sverse)Sphericity: To avoid bias from the boost along the beam axis, transverse
analysis of event shapes is considered to be the more preferred choice[26, 27]. For this purpose,
we also measure the Transverse Sphericity, defined as,
2λ2
ST = , (3)
(λ2 + λ1 )

such that, λ2 > λ1 [28].

9
’Transphericity’ Results:

Figure 3: Transphericity of the events for ’Hard’ Processes and ’Soft’ Processes.

10
 Figure 4: Transphericity of the events containing ’Anti-He’ and ’He’.

Results and Discussion: Above results display higher centrality events are more isotropic
than lower centrality events which is as anticipated.

11
B.2 ’Asymmetry’ analysis
Asymmetry, the consequence of an aberration, can be investigated by studying the flow-
coefficients of the particle-azimuthal distribution [29, 30, 31, 32]. The particle-correlation
measurements are expected to reflect the local mirror symmetry in the high-energy collision
experiments[41, 42]. Here, we present the two-particle correlation measurements. For two-
particle correlations, it is theoretically expected that:

hcos(φα − φβ )iSameCharge = −hcos(φα − φβ )iOppositeCharge (4)

where φα , φβ are the azimuthal-angle of the particle-pair chosen for the correlation cal-
culation and angle-brackets denotes the average over the events[33, 34, 43].

Two-Particle Correlation Results:

Figure 5: Two-Particle Event-Correlation for ”All Events”

12
 Figure 6: Two-Particle Event-Correlation for ”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

Results and Discussion: Above results are obtained by using the TPC detector for
He/AntiHe identification. However, if detector effects are also taken into consideration[35],
we believe results can approximate the theoretically expected values.

13
C Conclusion
Though there being many critics of the anthropic principle, considering it to be purely philo-
sophical reflection, but it seems this principle renders science a fair framework to comprehend
and solve the mystries of nature.
May be this local breaking of overall symmetric fabric is unalterable feature of the cos-
mos for us to exist, learn, admire, and eventually merge into. May be an aberration in
the singularity is an inevitability to counter-balance the quintessence side of the absolute
existence.
However, it will be interesting to examine, if this being not the case.

14
Acknowledgement
Author wishes to express his gratitude to Raghava Varma for the stimulating discussions.
This work was supported by Department of Science and Technology, India.

15
Primary
[1] E. P. Tryon. “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” In: Nature 246 (1973).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/246396a0, pp. 396–397 (cit. on p. 4).
[2] Alan H. Guth. “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and
flatness problems”. In: Physics Review D 23.2 (1981).
10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347, pp. 347–356 (cit. on p. 4).
[3] Roger Penrose. “Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology”. In: Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 571.1 (1989).
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb50513.x, pp. 249–264 (cit. on p. 4).
[4] Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. “A Cyclic Model of the Universe”. In: Science
296.5572 (2002).
10.1126/science.1070462, pp. 1436–1439 (cit. on p. 4).
[5] Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. “The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduc-
tion”. In: Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 124 (2003). arXiv:astro-ph/0204479v1
10.1016/S0920-5632(03)02075-9, pp. 38–49 (cit. on p. 4).
[6] Roger Penrose. Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. 1st.
ISBN:978-0-224-08036-1. The Bodley Head, 2010, p. 288 (cit. on p. 4).
[7] Willis E. Lamb and Robert C. Retherford. “Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom
by a Microwave Method”. In: Phys. Rev. 72 (3 Aug. 1947).
10.1103/PhysRev.72.241, pp. 241–243 (cit. on p. 4).
[8] S. W. Hawking. “Particle creation by black holes”. In: Communications in Math-
ematical Physics 43.3 (1975).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020, pp. 199–220 (cit. on p. 4).
[9] G. W. Erickson. “Energy Levels of One-Electron Atoms”. In: J. Phys. Chem.
Ref. Data 6.3 (1977).
http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd100.pdf (cit. on p. 4).
[10] Jerome Martin. “Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmolog-
ical Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask)”. In: arXiv:1205.3365v1[astro-
ph.CO] (2012).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3365 (cit. on p. 4).
[11] Astrid Lambrecht. “The Casimir effect: a force from nothing”. In: Physics World
(2002).
physicsworldarchive.iop.org (cit. on p. 4).

16
[12] Astrid Lambrecht and S. Reynaud. “Casimir Effect: Theory and Experiments”.
In: arXiv:1112.1301v1[quant-ph] (2011).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1301 (cit. on p. 4).
[13] Zhang-qi Yin, Andrew A. Geraci, and Tongcang Li. “Optomechanics of Levitated
Dielectric Particles”. In: Int. J. Modern Phys. B 27.1330018 (2013). arXiv:1205.3365v1[astro-
ph.CO]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3365 (cit. on p. 4).
[14] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow. “Unity of All Elementary-Particle Forces”. In:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 32.0 (1974).
10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.438, p. 438 (cit. on p. 4).
[15] Nassim Haramein. “Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass”. In: Physical
Review & Research International 3.4 (2013).
http://www.sciencedomain.org, pp. 270–292 (cit. on p. 4).
[16] Masanori Hanada, Yoshifumi Hyakutake, Goro Ishiki, and Jun Nishimura. “Holo-
graphic description of quantum black hole on a computer”. In: arXiv:1311.5607v1[hep-
th] ().
http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5607 (cit. on p. 4).
[17] Ruth Durrer and Laukenmann Joachim. “The Oscillating Universe: an Alterna-
tive to Inflation”. In: Classical Quantum Gravity 13.5 (1996). arXiv:gr-qc/9510041v2

10.1088/0264-9381/13/5/021, pp. 1069–1088 (cit. on p. 4).

[18] R. Penrose. “Before the big bang: An outrageous new perspective and its impli-
cations for particle physics”. In: Conf.Proc. C060626 (2006).
http://inspirehep.net/record/739171, pp. 2759–2767 (cit. on p. 5).
[19] B. B. Back et al.[PHOBOS Collaboration]. “Ratios of Charged Antiparticles-to-
√
Particles near Mid-Rapidity in Au + Au Collisions at sN N = 130 GeV”. In:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87.10 (2001).
10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.102301, p. 102301 (cit. on p. 5).
[20] M. Aguilar et al.[AMS Collaboration]. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 110.14 (2013).
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102 (cit. on p. 5).
[21] B. I. Abelev et al.[STAR Collaboration]. “Observation of the antimatter helium-4
nucleus”. In: Nature 473 (2011). arXiv:1103.3312v2 [nucl-ex]
10.1038/nature10079, pp. 353–356 (cit. on p. 5).

17
[22] Volker Springel, White Simon D. M., Jenkins Adrian, Frenk Carlos S., Yoshida
Naoki, Gao Liang, Navarro Julio, Thacker Robert, Croton Darren, Helly John,
Peacock John A., Cole Shaun, Thomas Peter, Couchman Hugh, Evrard August,
Colberg Joerg, and Pearce Frazer. “Simulating the joint evolution of quasars,
galaxies, and their large-scale distribution”. In: Nature 435.7042 (2005). arXiv:astro-
ph/0504097v2
10.1038/nature03597, pp. 629–636 (cit. on p. 5).
[23] R. Durrer, M. Kunz, and A. Melchiorri. “Cosmic Structure Formation with Topo-
logical Defects”. In: Physics Reports 364.1 (2002). arXiv:astro-ph/0110348v2
10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00014-5, pp. 1–81 (cit. on p. 5).
[24] A. J. G. Hey I. J. R. Aitchison. “Gauge Theories in Particle Physics”. In: 3rd ed.
Vol. 1. Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 54 (cit. on p. 6).
[25] P. Z. Skands T. Sjöstrand S. Mrenna. “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”. In:
JHEP 05.026 (2006, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175v2) (cit. on p. 7).
[26] Andrea Banfi, Gavin P. Salam, and Giulia Zanderighi. “Resummed event shapes
at hadron-hadron colliders”. In: JHEP 2004.08 (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0407287v3

10.1088/1126-6708/2004/08/062, p. 062 (cit. on p. 9).

[27] Andrea Banfi. “Event shapes at hadron colliders”. In: (2010).
arXiv:1101.0148v1 [hep-ph] (cit. on p. 9).
[28] B. Abelev et al.[ALICE Collaboration]. “Transverse sphericity
√ of primary charged
particles in minimum bias proton-proton collisions at s = 0.9, 2.76 and 7 TeV”.
In: Eur. Phys. J. C 72:2124.9 (2012).
arXiv:1205.3963v1 [hep-ex] (cit. on pp. 9, 23).
[29] R. Snellings S. A. Voloshin A. M. Poskanzer. “Collective phenomenon in non-
central nuclear collisions”. In: (2008, arXiv:0809.2949v2[nucl-ex]) (cit. on p. 12).
[30] Ananta P. Mishra, Ranjita K. Mohapatra, P. S. Saumia, and Srivastava. “Super-
horizon fluctuations and acoustic oscillations in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”.
In: Physics Review C 77 (6 2008).
10.1103/PhysRevC.77.064902, p. 064902 (cit. on p. 12).
[31] Ranjita K. Mohapatra, P. S. Saumia, and Ajit M. Srivastava. “Probing the
anisotropic expansion history of the universe with cosmic microwave background”.
In: (2011).
arXiv:1111.2722v1 [astro-ph.CO] (cit. on p. 12).

18
[32] Ranjita K. Mohapatra, P. S. Saumia, and Ajit M. Srivastava. “Analyzing flow
anisotropies with excursion sets in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”. In: (2011).
arXiv:1112.1177v1[nucl-th] (cit. on p. 12).
[33] B. I. Abelev et al.[STAR Collaboration]. “Azimuthal Charged-Particle Correla-
tions ans Possible Local Strong Parity Violation”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 103.251601
(2009).
10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.251601 (cit. on p. 12).
[34] B. I. Abelev et al.[STAR Collaboration]. “Azimuthal Charged-Particle Correla-
tions ans Possible Local Strong Parity Violation”. In: Phys. Rev. C 81.54908
(2010) (cit. on p. 12).
[35] N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault. “Analysis of directed flow from
elliptic flow”. In: Phys. Rev. C 66 (1 July 2002).
10.1103/PhysRevC.66.014905, p. 014905 (cit. on p. 13).

Witten Conjecture
[36] Edward Witten. “Supersymmetry and Morse theory”. In: Journal of Differential
Geometry 17.4 (1982), pp. 661–692.
[37] Edward Witten. “Topological quantum field theory”. In: Communications in
Mathematical Physics 117.3 (1988).
10.1007/BF01223371, pp. 353–386.
[38] Edward Witten. “Topological sigma models”. In: Communications in Mathemat-
ical Physics 118.3 (1988).
10.1007/BF01466725, pp. 411–449.
[39] Edward Witten. “Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial”. In: Commu-
nications in Mathematical Physics 121.3 (1989), pp. 351–399.
[40] Michael Atiyah. “Topological quantum field theories”. English. In: Publications
Mathmatiques de l’Institut des Hautes tudes Scientifiques 68.1 (1988), pp. 175–
186.

CME
[41] Sergei A. Voloshin. “Discussing the possibility of observation of parity violation
in heavy ion collisions”. In: Phys.Rev. C (2000). arXiv:nucl-th/0004042v2
10.1103/PhysRevC.62.044901, p. 044901 (cit. on p. 12).

19
[42] Sergei A. Voloshin. “Parity violation in hot QCD: how to detect it”. In: Phys.Rev.
C (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0406311v1
10.1103/PhysRevC.70.057901, p. 057901 (cit. on p. 12).
[43] B. Abelev and et al.[ALICE Collaboration]. “Charge separation relative to the
√
reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at sN N = 2.76 TeV”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.
110 (1 Jan. 2013). arXiv:1207.0900v3 [nucl-ex]
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.012301, p. 012301 (cit. on p. 12).
[44] Berndt Müller. “Looking for parity violation in heavy-ion collisions”. In: Physics
2 (Dec. 2009).
10.1103/Physics.2.104, p. 104.
[45] Panos Christakoglou for the ALICE Collaboration. “Charge dependent azimuthal
√
correlations in Pb–Pb collisions at sN N = 2.76 TeV”. In: J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part.
Phys. (2011).
arXiv:1106.2826v2 [nucl-ex], p. 124165.

’Spiral’ Structure
[46] Neta A. Bahcall, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Saul Perlmutter, and Paul J. Steinhardt.
“The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe”. In: Science 284.1481
(1999).
http://www.sciencemag.org.
[47] J. K. Webb, M. T. Murphy, V. V. Flambaum, V. A. Dzuba, J. D. Barrow, C. W.
Churchill, J. X. Prochaska, and A. M. Wolfe. “Further Evidence for Cosmologi-
cal Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant”. In: Physical Review Letters 87.9
(2001).
[48] P. P. Avelino, C. J. A. P. Martins, C. Santos, and E. P. S. Shellard. “Topological
defects: A problem for cyclic universes?” In: Phys. Rev. D 68 (12 Dec. 2003).
arXiv:astro-ph/0206287v2
10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123502, p. 123502.

Triviality of Space and Time

[49] Ronald L Mallett. “Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in
a ring laser”. In: Physics Letters A 269.4 (2000).
10.1103/Physics.2.104, pp. 214 –217.

20
[50] Seth Lloyd, Maccone Lorenzo, Garcia-Patron Raul, Giovannetti Vittorio, and
Shikano Yutaka. “The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected
teleportation”. In: Phys. Rev. D 84.025007 (2011).
10.1103/PhysRevD.84.025007.

Symmetry
[51] Elena. Castellani. Symmetries in Physics.
10.1017/CBO9780511535369.020. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

21
A Graphical Representation

singularity symmetry absolute

perturbation
aberration
(leading to topological defect)

duality asymmetry ethereal optical

plurality

22
 B Event Selection
• Events segregated into ’Soft’ and ’Hard’.
• Soft Events 1 [28] are defined as events that do not have a track above
2 GeV/c while Hard Events are all others.
• The aggregate of both classes is called ’All’.

1
http: // arxiv. org/ abs/ 1205. 3963v1

23
C Experimental Set-Up
√
• Analysis for Au-Au collisions at sN N = 200GeV .
• Triggered by MinBias and Central.
• Track Selection:
– nHits ≥ 20
– 0.1 ≤ pT ≤ 12.0
– Abs(η) ≤ 0.50
– DCA < 1.0
nHitsF it
– 0.52 ≤ ratio[= nHitsP oss ] ≤ 1.05
– For He-3 Selection:
Abs(nSigmaHe3) < 2.0
nDeDx > 15

24
D Results
”All Events”

25
”All Events”

26
”All Events”

27
”All Events”

28
”All Events”

29
”All Events”

30
”All Events”

31
”All Events”

32
”All Events”

33
”All Events”

34
”All Events”

35
”All Events”

36
”All Events”

37
”All Events”

38
”All Events”

39
”All Events”

40
”All Events”

41
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

42
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

43
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

44
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

45
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

46
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

47
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

48
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

49
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

50
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

51
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

52
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

53
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

54
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

55
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

56
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

57
”Selected He/Anti-He Events”

58
E Mémoire
There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.

There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,

with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,

that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.

Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?

Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen

- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps He does not know

59