Pages

Saturday, February 12, 2005

What Pattern Emerges?

Problem solvers have a way of getting to the heart of the issues, and unfortunately when ones engages competent minds like Peter Woit in the world? Whose sign post is,"anti-string with no explanation"? This is simple in the minds of the general public? It then becomes a rant, without a substantial basis? Why? Because he had no platform with which to refute?

So this attempt was fruitless, in wondering why strings should not be.

What I did find viable in looking for myself, is finding out where strings applicable features pervaded and what they were describing. Both bottum up and top down have to find approaches that emerge from a place that asks us to map this progress, and there is only one place that allows me to understand this operation.

The spectrum.

When you look at Glast operations this idealization of using the spectrum in cosmological discernation, helped to clarify why the move of strings to a cosmological operation platform was necessary from a experimental and scientific undertanding. Why was this move important?

It had to do with the amounts of energy needed to explore the principles of reductionism? How could we extend reductionism to a cosmological question about the origins of our beginning? There were no limitations as to the question of the energy that could be displayed for us all to wonder on that cosmological pallete, and here Relativity Ruled.

While complexity, asks us about the means of what is established in the forms, stands for us in our observations, as existing? Many people feel safe in what they can see?

I looked for comparative features. Like how ideas could emerge and as a good example of what math could issue from the minds of those whose good observation could speak about natures manfestations.

How good are the observatory minds of mathematicians? That would systematically describe for us this idealization of quantum reality and Relativity to join in a way that makes sense?

Macroscopic and microcosmo perceptions joined?

You say Time? Julian Barbour wants to do away with Time? Yet his goal is the same? He calls Time a human construct? What isn'taside from everythng else that we don't see? Science reveals a deeper truth?

Killing Time

Barbour posits that time is, in fact, an illusion - a measure imposed on the world by humanity. He explains this with the concept of a 'now', which he describes as a snapshot in time - a completely frozen, self-contained instant (much like a Polaroid photograph). Time is simply the measure of the space between two separate and unrelated 'nows.'



BarryTo offer that I am an engineer and a sculpture with a carear of problem solving. To offer that making me understand the final solution is to achieve making it clear to anyone.

I am somewhat like a philosopsher as you are, minus, the engineering, yet I am quite capable of peering past the veil that good minds construct.

In the end, what is taken with you might be the realization that of all the thought forms we have estanblished and created. The illusion that we move through, hides a deeper truth, and we were emersed within it the whole time. Science, verified the anomalies that we saw?

How much power then could we grant the mind who escapes this realization, to find that all the thoughts that have ever existed, were weighted with the gravity that held us to earth? That the forms, revealled a deeper realization of their beginnings?

As the temperature cooled, the solification was final and so was the idealization that manifested from the idea.

When is a pipe a pipe? Is a question about what supergravity reveals in the forms manifestation. Crystalization. What pattern emerges?


Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"


Yet probablistic in nature, how could such things arrange themselves as they have?

There is a deeper question here about the reality. If the idea is born in mind how would it not burn up, comparative to the beginning of our universe? Yet nature has supplied a good analogy of bubbles that form, rise to the surface, and this could have been information that arose from the fifth dimension? It all arose form the mind of the subconsious? It was always closer to the source. Why Ramanujan and Einsteins note taking in the subtle realms help to spur the incubation of reality to a deepr level of questions.

People might say indeed, that this departure point from the sane world of forms, is the moving further into the illusions? But if we cannot find a way to free ourselves, then surely, one will accept the consequences of there reality, as they take it with them?:)

65 comments:

barry_99 said...

If time is an illusion then to see behind the veil we must first define the boundaries of the veil. To do this we must first accept that it is an absolute until we find a crack.

Space-time has at least one vector in time. That our frame of reference sees time as linier and as an instantenious point does not prevent other frames of reference.

Two photons to exhibit quantum entanglement. Does this imply a connection in some direction I cannot directly observe, like time? They were once entangled so they remain entangled until this symmetry is broken?

Plato said...

Maybe you can help me to get the facts straight as well. I am learning too.

I added a link to a article on Julian Barbour, to exemply another perspective and attempt, at joining Qm and GR( the hands on the elephant)

If time is an illusion then to see behind the veil we must first define the boundaries of the veil.Gravity and Light in the fifth Dimension.Spacetime, is a result of the higher dimensions? If we look back to the events 13 billions ago then what would this mean? From a four dimenisnal perspective how did Kaluza raise this to the fifth?

Two photons to exhibit quantum entanglement. Does this imply a connection in some direction I cannot directly observe, like time?Compton and Graviton Scatterings What is Symmetry Breaking?the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.

barry_99 said...

Now that you have given me a better understanding of symmetry I come to some realizations. That as a value approaching some limit; all symmetry must be broken.

The modifier to consider is if initial conditions exist to allow the energy changes required to break symmetry.

There being background thermal signature everywhere I look leads me to question one such parameter. Could I actually achieve a low enough temperature to break symmetry in the direction of mass/energy concentrate? Maybe if I find another way to remove heat energy?

Looking at the beginning of time I see that at symmetry breaking is where emergent properties define physical laws. It is here that all probabilities exist. What becomes important to me here is what probability was realized. It is only here that I can find time as an illusionary veil. It is the probability that was chosen that set the pattern of weaving the veil.

In my probability I look at all of my histories and see that time must follow the weave of the pattern. If the dinosaurs looked at 160 million years in time as an illusion, then their imaginary deaths are 60 million years in the past. Even if I could travel instantaneously I find the weave impossible to break.

I jump to a planet 4 light years away and look at earth, I see myself four years ago contemplating the journey. I have arrived before the information of my departure. No matter how many times I jump back and forth, I am never fast enough to catch myself as more than an information lag that I had just left.

Every fiber of my being tells me that the veil became real when its existence emerged from the set of possible veils. This tells me that for the probability chosen, time can only move forward. We can slide down the veil at different rates of progression through time, but we cannot undo the weave, change the pattern, or even stop it from sliding through our grasp.

Plato said...

The modifier to consider is if initial conditions exist to allow the energy changes required to break symmetryIf we look at where we are now in the scheme of things then of course, there is a difference between the gravity of a earlier time(Steven Weinberg's first three minutes), to the one we find now on earth?

Yet, there is information roaming freely in the bulk that passes through all things, and resonates.

Robert Laughlin does not care about this, but this does not take away from what happened at another time, and can resonate in this time?

The forms would be the crystalizations of the matter forms, yet what space would measure this relevance to dimensional perspective?

Distances” Determine Geometry

Describe an object with a table of distances between points.

Describe spacetime with a table of intervals between events

It is not my purpose in this discussion to represent the general theory of relativity as a system that is as simple and as logical as possible, and with the minimum number of axioms; but my main object here is to develop this theory in such a way that the reader will feel that the path we have entered upon is psychologically the natural one, and that the underlying assumptions will seem to have the highest possible degree of security.

—Albert Einstein


So dimensional signficance to me would be of value in the math determinations, and how we use this math to describe the variations in graviton information.

The space between a quark to quark measure would be very revealing if we did not look at the two points , but focused on the distance in between them?

barry_99 said...

Absolutely. Tell me that two points lie in the mind of God? Tell me they are in the test tube of the architect? Are they in a seething pool at the bottom of a jungle of energy, or as the vibrations of strings stretched between membranes.

Maybe all, or none of the above? When the path of travel eludes definition then I cannot accept that a deeper meaning is yet revealed. I can believe in probabilities that are potentials to be realized. I do this every time I place a bet on a hand of poker.

I bump my head on the hard edges of the path I travel. I am told the path is an illusion and no more real than any other probability that the path might take. Wild speculations abound of alternate universes and energy slipping through the veil. Maybe true, yet no explanation is found for the last sharp edge that bruised my head, or of a way to avoid the bruise.

My world is made of concrete and steel, my life a short mark in a large book. Speak to me of magic and ask for faith. You should be pulling a rabbit out of my own hat, where I knew none existed this morning. This is the skepticism you must engage to offer that a deeper truth is revealed. A full explanation of all in my path would convince me that you have found a deeper meaning.

For me it comes down to a question of the finite within the infinite. Just beyond the beginning of the symmetry I perceive, I know that many paths are the potential, yet I exist on the path that is chosen. There cannot be infinite paths, for then there is infinite energy for them to use. Infinite possibilities must exist but I determine that there is only enough energy for one. That all is finite is revealed to me because I see energy approaching limiting values in every direction of travel.

For space-time to be fully revealed, it must be fully defined. I can observe the behavior of space-time on a macro scale. What does it do on a quantum scale? Does it even have quantum scale components as does mass? Time emerges as the most important to me now. Once I understand every fold of this veil, then I can seek a deeper meaning beyond the veil.

Time dilation is a very real property of space-time. Is it fully understood? Why does space-time see photons with velocity and frequency additive, and mass with velocity and mass additive? Is it short verses long wavelengths? Velocity through the time component of space time?

barry_99 said...

I look at the sun and see a sphere. The only direction that I can observe any other shape is in time. Stretched through time I might perceive a cylender? Then the only anchor for this energy path is across time?

Plato said...

I am sorry that I could not respond sooner.

Tell me that two points lie in the mind of God? Tell me they are in the test tube of the architect? Are they in a seething pool at the bottom of a jungle of energy, or as the vibrations of strings stretched between membranes.Of course I am taken back to the early days of euclid first couple of postulates.

We know that euclidean geometries fall short of explaining higher dimensional realities.

So we have to expand our minds to consider non euclidean views. Who were the authors of this beginning and we learn very quickly how to percieve a flat world with no gravity, to one of gravity?

Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.


But it continues to here.

Klein's Ordering of GeometriesA theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.http://www.ensc.sfu.ca/people/grad/brassard/personal/THESIS/node21.html


A new post was produced on entropy and relates to our discussion on symmetry breaking? It can all be quite confusing for me sometimes.

Plato said...

Sorry about links in previous post


Klein's Ordering of Geometries

barry_99 said...

Do not feel pressured to respond in any time frame. Sometimes I ponder something for years and still find inadequate solutions. I find myself in the unique position of having too much time for mischief. You must learn to deal with the frustration of speaking to my ignorance. I have for years mused on the mysteries of the universe, and only recently posed my musings to others. My education in this arena is rudimentary and fragmented.

Klein’s ordering as a mathematical proof is irrefutable. What is not proven to me is to what level energy follows this model. I have seen structures fail that followed a perfect mathematical model. Another parameter exerted an unexpected influence, or a previously undiscovered property emerged. Friction follows known laws, and yet the exact coefficient between two surfaces can only be determined by testing to failure. To ignore this leads to catastrophe.

Consider our universe as a single spark in a shower of sparks. There are many levels of models to consider. A grinder collides with a large metal structure, producing sparks. The metal would appear to be infinite because it has the potential to produce a great many sparks. The metal is not infinite in its own frame; each strike reduces a tiny amount to sparks.

Consider that each spark is burning to cinders. I could graph stages of consumption as similar in each spark, and conclude correctly that strings connect all the sparks. If my frame of reference is constrained to the exact moment of burning, then one spark is my universe and I wonder what symmetry is preserved.

What is important to me here is not if symmetry is preserved, but how much symmetry is preserved, and how much is lost. There must exist some largest unit of energy that can pass through a big bang intact. Energy of any larger size must be broken. Energy of smaller size remains unbroken. The emerging question is if this largest unit possible is one singularity or group of singularities?

The question of how much symmetry is preserved becomes immaterial in another respect. The event is of such totality that little can be determined of initial conditions.

Since I cannot connect each spark by any means other than a mathematical abstract, I cannot say how many sparks there are. They must be finite for an energy change of some unit produced them. My abstract is a potential for infinite paths, yet I can only determine the exact path of the one I exist in.

This predicts that a string theory must emerge as the abstract of all possibilities? Yet we need a model that speaks to the path we find ourselves on?

If it is not all very confusing then we follow a blind path?

Plato said...

What is not proven to me is to what level energy follows this model. I have seen structures fail that followed a perfect mathematical model.I actual have two links for consideration, and one of these deals specifically with the question of energy following this modelThe second links expands the thinking in terms of quantum gravity My education in this arena is rudimentary and fragmented.Then you can relax as I am a laymen myself, who has wondered through a lot of information over the years. LOts to learn and it never seems to end

barry_99 said...

If we consider gravity as the force space-time exerts on mass then some other considerations emerge. That velocity increases mass and dilates time suggest that time has an energy value. Consider that space-time is compressed by mass and pushes back exhibiting compression as gravity. With velocity approaching C space-time is compressed in front and stretched as it tries to fill in behind mass. This implies that space-time has vectored energy components. Contraction of length is a spatial vector and dilation is the time component vector.

In this model a string in time is virtual as it is a mathematical abstract of the chosen path as it is realized. The history of where a particle has traveled is a path that has a relationship with all other histories. An instantaneous moment of now is more than perception, because it is the boundary between a path that is chosen and the infinity of choices the path might take. Velocity in time then carries an inertial function that eliminates possibilities exponentially. That the earth is in orbit around the sun eliminates a lot of possibilities, for example that the earth might crash into Vega.

Entropy then emerges as a function of the dynamics of the process? Time histories emerge as realities of the chosen path? Strings emerge as an imaginary abstract to understand the path? That is ok with me. All of our mathematics then emerges as abstracts of the path. An electron does not consult a periodic chart to choose an orbit. The orbit is chosen for it by the histories. The periodic chart is possible because we can abstract futures from the limitations in possibility imposed by the histories.

barry_99 said...

Inertial time frames of energy introduce an uncertainty? Is a photon a particle or a wave? In its own inertial frame neither of these possibilities have been eliminated. When referenced from within our inertal frame, one or the other possibility is eliminated by the collisions of the histories?

barry_99 said...

If the inertial frame of a photon has a time energy then consider collisions with other histories. Red shift and particle collisions extract energy as the elimination of possibilities. If the photons inertial frame survives the collision with a net energy loss then only the energy lost is a determined path? The remaining photon energy retains its its uncertainty at a lower energy level?

Plato said...

Hi Barry,

The kinds of questions you are asking are important, becuase they are the experimental basis that has been understood in Glast, versus analogies I am portraying in graviton scattering link, as I have shown.

Compton-and-Graviton-scatteringsGlast determination and gamma ray detection using calorimeter helps us to organize our thoughts in regards to that early universe perspective.

How could we talk about photon interaction at early universe beginnings considering the energies involved? Cosmologically this is very revealling in terms of blue and red shifting, but how would lensing and time dilation help in this regard?

The energy consideration in considering the graviton scattering would have to be specific to the information released in the early event?

barry_99 said...

Hi Sol

It occurs to me that every approach we take to understand the universe comes back to one theme. All becomes dependent as motions in time. Consider then the unstoppable force and the immovable object.

If static time did not compress there would be no motion of any kind. If static time had no resistance, all would be motion. Since all energies are measured with respect to time then all equations can be solved for time value. All energies, motions, particles, waves, all that we know are forms of compression energy in time. Motion as dynamic time verses the pressure of static time.

If we consider the big bang as the pressure release valve then equilibrium was broken when dynamic motion intruded into static space-time. Expansion occurs at the point of intrusion, compression as regions where equilibrium is again being established. C emerges then, not as an absolute speed limit, but as the coefficient of surface tension between two super fluids. Bubble nucleation viewed from our limited frame of reference models both gravity and anti-gravity expansion. Mass/energy relationships are distributed arrangements of velocity and rotational forces. All arrangements are unstable because space-time pressure is constant.

Equilibrium is accomplished as black hole formation. This would not require a single super massive black hole to consume all matter. Only that all black holes are capable of compacting motion. Early galaxies may not have had black holes, but all will eventually develop one. Mass/energy distribution ratios should emerge from older galaxies.

In this model the only property required of space-time is pressure. As the fluid undergoing permanent change, mass/energy distributions as light, mass, dark matter, or whatever become dependent on phase transitions. Entropy emerges because space-time pressure is relentless. The properties that emerge as most physical laws are determined by phase interactions. Space-time sees all as unwanted intrusions to be squeezed out of existence.

This model requires that space-time be a compressible fluid. If it is more dynamic than this, as in subatomic particle exchanges between space-time and light then the model falls apart.

barry_99 said...

It would be very revealing to establish how soon the earliest GRB’s occurred after big bang. We should recognize that, there could be many types of GRB’s depending on the source.

Your thoughts?

Plato said...

Hi Barry

It occurs to me that every approach we take to understand the universe comes back to one theme. All becomes dependent as motions in time. Consider then the unstoppable force and the immovable object.The view here then as I read your post, points to a dynamical realization about how we percieve the dynamcis of the universe and how we explain it in a way that we can understand.

Here the Friedmann equation is very important in this regard, as it sets up how we can see where dark matter might lead perspective to opposition, like black and white and the interplay.

Kaku's vision of looking from the bridge into the eyes of the carp looking at the surface of the water, helps one to orientate this move to non euclidean views and what happens at GRB manifestation in the early universe.

INfomration is left in the bulk, and gravitonic condensation, saw us back to blackhole growth, would be part of this dynamcial feature of the universe as rejuvenation?

Here I would point to the matrices involved and how we would see this feature disquised in, early universe exchanges revealled in glast determinations. This will become the subject of a new thread soon.

In contrast to the arrow of time?

It leaves the idealization of how we see what has always existed? How do we percieve the universe then if it becomes cyclical in nature? It would have to have features we recognize in this rejuvenation process, that would take us through all the phases of science, and it's manifestation?

Back to the energy that has been released, and is recovered, to further ths expansive feature?

As strange as this may sound and in contradiction to the thermodynamical issues, where is this energy source amongst us, that we have never really been that far from the origins of ths beginning. And only needed to find the pathway to this early universe beginning.

The early events are with us now?:)

Your second post is important and I will address this too shortly.

barry_99 said...

What a model does is help us understand the unknown by comparing it to what is known. It would take many models to tackle the theory of everything and even then we would have to arrive at some new concepts beyond the models.

In the compressible super fluid model a cyclical universe is not established. We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.

For compression to occur we have to establish volume as bound in some way. This does not fit a universe that appears unbouind. If space-time had a crystalline like structure then it would be self bounding. From compression torsion in the lattice there emerges field parameters? Like maybe the Higgs field? In this way the model bycomes more dynamic?

Plato said...

What a model does is help us understand the unknown by comparing it to what is known. It would take many models to tackle the theory of everything and even then we would have to arrive at some new concepts beyond the models.Lhc and linear experimentation would be a case where this model would be sutable for examination?

Phenix article was develoing in my mind when you spoke about supperfluidity as a perception of that early dynamcial realization of the early universe. For me this vision is closing in on the origins, and is part of the spectrum of possibilties.

I injected cosmic particle interactions as a phase considerations of the early universe and atmospheric interactions as a viable observation to microstate blackholes?

I updated Shakespearean Quandry?

In the compressible super fluid model a cyclical universe is not established. We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.Blackhole productionBefore such a collapse is initiated in bubble, the boundry conditions would have recogized such limitations?

Cavitation produced by sound waves and moved inside the bubble would have determined the bubbles size, and energy released. The recognition of the schwarzchild radius and would reveal energy valution in the continued expression of inflation? Hence cyclcial in that inflation would reveal swiss cheese universe with microstate blackholes, and the continued expansion.

Part of this contiued push is recognition of the Bose NOva and anti-matter production from such gravitational collapses in jet recognitions.

This dynamical realization, forced me to consider not only geometrical realizations on cosmological proportions, but redirected my thought to topological use of genus figures of the sphere in the quantum geometries and planck scale recognitions.

Do you follow this thinking?

Plato said...

We would have to examine black hole metrics to project further. I am considering this for another post.-------------



Please go ahead here as I would like to see thinking you are developing.

barry_99 said...

Greetings

Consider that gravity may have two components. Pressure exerted by space-time displacement and field forces that arise from torsional fluctuations in space-time.

Bubble nucleation demonstrates appearent gravity and anti-gravity behaviors as a scaler function.

When looking at gravity on a quantum scale we would have to consider if the contribution by each component remains linear? That gravity could change behavior as a scaler function in both large and small frames of reference?

That this may change black hole metrics as matter compresses to smaller scales? That thermodynamics may change with scale?

your thoughts?

Plato said...

Hi Barry

Consider that gravity may have two components. Pressure exerted by space-time displacement and field forces that arise from torsional fluctuations in space-time.----------

This may seem really strange that such a "gravitational collapse" would produce a blackhole?

So while this blackhole is developing and sucking in gravitonic infomration, how much energy is being imparted to the blackhole structure? It's expanding and has cooling temperatures(?), yet it will reach certain limitiations, before it's collapse again?

The Elastic Nature------

Bubble nucleation demonstrates appearent gravity and anti-gravity behaviors as a scaler function.-----

It is very difficult for me to separate the vacuum flunctuation in bubble collapse, as not effecting the spacetime fabric.

While we may see energy expansion from the re-collapse of a previous state( a star that can no longer support itself) to a collapse of the blackhole again(re-ignition), would have made this energy part of a cyclical process, that would include gravitonic information, and even while, photon dispersal is obvious, the photon is held to the event, and can traverse vast distances in terms of billions of years. All the while gravitonic expression is free to roam in the bulk, and yet, we see and make use of this in a continuing process of rejuvenation?

Further use of this analogy in terms of bubble structure, minus the buble intesections, as possible connection between monte carlo methods of quantum gravity percpetions in the use of simplex's, I hold off from this particpation, in respect of the continuity and move away from discrete recognitions.

To me defining states that would cater to such bubble technologies would help orientate the mind towards these early universe conditions. Require this support?

Without it I see no possibilties of cyclical nature being exploited in the blackhole process of rejevuenation.

barry_99 said...

That the universe exists implies that other universes can exist. That they must be seperated by time or spatial dimension is recognized. That the energy distributions found in the bulk establish remnents of previous energy processes feeding into a big bang does suggest cyclical behavior, but does not rule out other possibilities. Just as inertial time functions eliminate possibilities, we must explore the uknown by elmination.

Should we first define cyclical? Is it that the same energy must be recycled, or that other energy proceses show repeatability?

Hypothesize that all black holes are connected by a compacted dimension. Upon collapse they transfer all of their energy into this compacted dimension. That space time mantains compaction by gravity compression. When enough black hole energy enters the compacted region space time compression is overcome. A new big bang erupts.

For this hypothesis to be correct we have to establish the role dark matter plays. In this scenario I see no role for dark matter other than as a catalyst? We would have to assume dark matter to be inert and to have no role in phase transformations?

Further we would have to show that, the energy plumes extending from black holes, do not contain any energy that is expelled from the black hole core. That all of the energy transfers to the compacted dimension?

If I have overlooked some role that dark matter could play in phase transitions, while mantaining this scenerio please correct me.

Other scenerios have not yet been eliminated?

your thoughts?

Thales of Miletus said...

Hi Barry,

More personalities then you could shake a stick at eh:)


Further we would have to show that, the energy plumes extending from black holes, do not contain any energy that is expelled from the black hole core. That all of the energy transfers to the compacted dimension?IN consideration if the Bose Nova, the jets release anti-matter. This would account for the dark energy?

What shall we call this hypothesis?

IN consideration of the attributes to fluidity, I wanted to further share some of my perceptions in regards to what I see in the beginning of the universe, that could emit from the subtle valuation creativity bubbling up to the surface of awareness.

You should read, Civilizations Within the Cosmo in this blog.

barry_99 said...

Thank you for the time, effort, and patience you have put into our dialogue. Not being a physicist, or knowing anyone with similar interest, I have not had anyone to discuss my philosophies with. You are the victim of my years of frustration and I am enjoying heaping it all on you. I am taking advantage of your extensive knowledge of physics to direct my thinking, so I hope you can stand it. That being said, I have a lot of thoughts about the missing galactic community. I tend to be a task oriented obsessionest and when enthralled with an enigma I tend to work on it to the exclusion of all else, so I will try to fit some dialogue on alien agendas into your other blog page somewhere along the line. My wife has had to learn great patience with my obsessions.

While anti-matter may emit from black holes, I find this unlikely to be a major product. For one thing we would have to consider what properties the emissions would have that allow them to escape gravity so strong that not even light can escape. Add to this that the emissions have gravitational properties such that mass/energy is swept into the plumes. Now consider that for a cyclical universe to emerge as a perpetual motion machine, even the energy escaping in the plumes would have to be reabsorbed. Why would these energies then be pushed into the compacted region and not be expelled again? Of course we could say that while cyclic,the process is not perpetual motion, and will eventually run down with each cycle reprocessing less energy. Not very elegent and I tend to reject this as there must be a better answer. We must also consider that if signatures remain that describe a cyclical process, then the process cannot be efficient enough at re-birth to not eventually run down?

If we continue to eliminate possibilities what are we left with? I would look for an emergent truth to be revealed? Do I reach too far in asserting that a closed cyclical universe is yet excluded? Perhaps my logic is flawed or some factor uknown that leaves a sealed and cyclical universe on the table?

Your thoughts?

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

While reading some of your web pages and organizing my thoughts I had an epiphany. I offer what I hope is an elegant solution to the mysteries we ponder.

What if black hole ejections were dark matter? That they are the smallest energy states in the universe. They are ejected because they do not posses gravity. They are gravity. Pieces of space-time that are spinning, sweeping mass/energy up in their wake. Due to their motions they exhibit some mass/energy properties, such as gravitational lensing. That after all of mass/energy has been converted to dark matter, what is left are spinning pieces of dark matter. When all of the reverberations of the big bang settle down, dark matter changes one more time. Dark matter then expands its last remaining motion energy to establish a bond with space-time. Motion energy converted to lattice bonds, expanding space-time.

When all motion ceases the super fluid liquid crystal of space-time no longer exerts pressure on the compacted dimension. Being temporarily unbound pressure explodes into space-time as a new big bang. The explosive force reverberates through space-time, sealing the compacted region again, until this new universe is converted to more space-time lattice.

Not exactly perpetual motion, but a repeated motion?

Your thoughts?

Thales of Miletus said...

Hi Barry,

What if black hole ejections were dark matter? That they are the smallest energy states in the universe. They are ejected because they do not posses gravity. They are gravity.This is the right idea as I see it, and would serve to help see cyclical nature we have been discussing.

If you focus on the dimenisnal attributes of higher dimenisons this is what is revealled, as far as I can tell. This would relate to gravitonic condensation that I have refered too.

Does a Graviton contain the energy to help rekindle the gravitational collapse once the boundaries have reached it's limitation in terms of the schwarzchld radius?

barry_99 said...

Consider that as a black hole reaches the schwarzchld radius it may explode if it is still surrounded by mass/energy. However as there becomes less mass/energy and more dark matter another metric emerges. When there is no more energy to feed the black hole it is surrounded by the dark matter it produced. This would provide the extra compression to rekindle collapse.

It all comes down to a super fluid expanding from infinite compression into a space-time super fluid crystal that exerts great pressure if compressed by a tiny amount.

This is the model. The mathmatical abstraction defining it speaks to the higher dimensional aspects.

The energy contributing to the lattice is in the tiniest pieces possible. Torsion in the lattice then gives rise to electromagnetic fields. The vector motion of magnetics arise from these torsional fluctuations.

There is no such thing as empty space. Even the regions between electrons and the nucleus are filled with lattice under torsion.

Can someone please build me a spaceship that reacts directly with space-time? I want to go for a ride.

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

If this model of space-time is correct then there emerges classes of energy defined by their reactions to the lattice.

There are those particles that only displace space-time without torsion, such as neutrons.

Those that displace and exhibit torsion as in electrons and protons.

Another class that does not cause displacement but exhibit torsion, such as light.

your thoughts?

barry_99 said...

Another thought

Consider that in the presence of very strong gravity there is so much compression that torsion is restricted. Light does not propegate here so black holes emit no light?

Plato said...

Consider that in the presence of very strong gravity there is so much compression that torsion is restricted. Light does not propegate here so black holes emit no light?Part of your thnkng here would be correct as far as I seethe effect of the photon held to sucha event.

But it is more then this. I speak about the planck epoch and the first three minutes and I allude to this in U(1)[electromagnetism] configuration as seen in the diagram in post of yesterday the 24 of Febuary. How does this arise inthe standard model.

I am looking for speciifc informtaion to point in this direction.

Plato said...

If this model of space-time is correct then there emerges classes of energy defined by their reactions to the lattice.The QCD direction shared by John Ellis points to the method of apprehension that we would speak about.

When you refer to lattice, I would need to be corrected as to how you are seeing this. I am thinking of certain triangulations and the monte carlo method, demonstrated in quantum gravity.

As Scattering amplitudes?

barry_99 said...

The use of lattice is for lack of a better term. Perhaps you can suggest one, as this term seems clumsy and inept. Conceptually I envision space-time as particles so tiny that sub-atomic particles would seem large. Compression emerges as gravity waves. Consider that gravity then exhibits as pressure on a quantum scale. A larger body exhibits gravity as the sum of compressions.

They would have a directional alignment that torsion would disturb? Thus a magnetic field would emerge due to directional arrangement? The polar aspects establish north/south and/or positive/negative relationships? Electromagnetic wave propagation is the torsion disturbance a photon exerts in passing? Frequency is due to photon spin rate? The magnetic component is due to the sum of alignment? Would there be fluid flow along lines of magnetic force? Forces transmit through space-time as a wave of polar alignment, or as a fluid flow? Possibly as both or either, depending on the metrics? I grope in the dark to understand this piece of the elephant.

Would light propagation change significantly in interstellar space where gravity compression is small?

I will ponder your questions more. My understanding of quantum mechanics is woefully inadequate.

barry_99 said...

But it is more then this. I speak about the planck epoch and the first three minutes and I allude to this in U(1)[electromagnetism] configuration as seen in the diagram in post of yesterday the 24 of Febuary

Maybe I missed something. Post of 24th where?

Plato said...

Hi Barry

Triumph of the Standard ModelThis is the article I was referring too, and I give a link to the other universal expression of the cosmo, between John Ellis's statements.

U(1) can be found here for further reading. See this information in context of the mapping of expression. And we have to see how the standard model is being expressed in those first three minutes.

Particle physicists describe this as saying that the symmetry of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) is spontaneously broken down to SU(3)xU(1) at the electroweak scale of about 100GeV.

Plato said...

What is the ? represent?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.One has to work their way to the microscopic view of the universe to understand what is happenng within those first three minutes?

String theory tells us about this time(high energy). Also, if we wanted to comprehend the expansive process and did not see the singuarity that was to have been derived from the blackhole collapse, oneneeded to see the nature of the universe breathing and rejuvenating.

Ultimately, the conclusion I am reaching is that the sum of all that string theory is, defines the Calab Yua models as movements that could might be traced in windings. The difference, in the 1R radius of this circle, helps us to define the amplitutde of the string and change in the tube as it expands and contracts in this calabi yau model

This is all very abtract to me, and I am learning here.

Plato said...

One of the most dramatic recent results in string theory is the derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula for black holes obtained by counting the microscopic string states which form a black hole. Bekenstein noted that black holes obey an "area law", dM = K dA, where 'A' is the area of the event horizon and 'K' is a constant of proportionality. Since the total mass 'M' of a black hole is just its rest energy, Bekenstein realized that this is similar to the thermodynamic law for entropy, dE = T dS. Hawking later performed a semiclassical calculation to show that the temperature of a black hole is given by T = 4 k [where k is a constant called the "surface gravity"]. Therefore the entropy of a black hole should be written as S = A/4.

Plato said...

Barry,

A photon is massless, as is a graviton. I believe this to be the case and and you can research for verification.

When you think of photon(a representatve of electromagnetc waves) over spacetime fabric any mass impression, the photon will follow this curve in the spacetime. If itr is extreme curvature as in the blackhole the distance travelled will be very short, to not at all?

Gravitons as representative of gravitational waves reveal the nature of the spacetime fabric.

Gravitons are free to roam in the bulk. Their concentration will reveal extreme cases of curvature, like blackholes.

Photons are held to the branes. Any event ithe early universe wil reveal tha nature of the event and cannot separate itself from it. The gravity waves produced can.

The information gathered in LIGO is considered in context of what those events release in terms of gravitational waves. The gravitons wil release specific informtaion in the structural anaysis of that event, although, not held to it like the photon.

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

Between meeting obligations I have been giving myself a crash course in quantum mechanics. While one could spend a lifetime at this I am seeking enough understanding to look for patterns.

While a free quark is not observed, they satisfy the energy distribution requirements, to balance the symmetry breaking equations. While quarks are an act of faith it is one grounded in math derived from solid observation of resultant components. The distrubuted components at 19gev are expected to include gravity. The uknowns can only be determined by testing to failure (symmetry breaking).

While we do not yet have high enough energy collisions to achieve this ther might be another way to look at it. Just as it would be very revealing to examine the behavior of a single photon, consider if we could develop a sensitive enough way to measure a single nuclear reaction. There mighr be some benefit in comparing differing fission reactions to those of fusion reactions.

If one could determine the energies contributed by the distributed componants, the remainder energy might yield some clues to gravity.

Any modal building on this would have to arise from how dynamic space-time is. Maybe this eludes us because because the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)components that we understand emerge from the higgs field, while gravity emerges from the particles that exhibit the higgs field, as a property.

While we do not yet have the technology to reveal this, at least we know where to look. Have I simply stated the obvious? Have I simply lost the path?

Our model builds on a big bang erupting into a space-time already in existance. From what I read of current big bang theory the pre big bang singularity is defined as a single particle occupying all of space, implying that space-time is created at the same time and expands with mass.

If space-time expands with mass then we would expect gravity to change radicly with time. While gravity does change with time I suspect that the changes are not large enough to exceed those expected from large mass/energy concentrations expanding into less dense configurations within an existing space-time.

What I am getting at here is that our current SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) models build on one type of singularity. The space-time model we have discussed may require changes to the standerd model that speaks to this difference.

I do not find this inconsistant because I read a current definition of a black hole as a singularity that occupies no space but does exist in all time. I find this definition to be faulty in that just after big bang it should be found that no black holes yet existed. Time in any conceivable definition existed before black holes.

In the singularity expanding with space-time model I would expect to find galaxies to the very edges of space-time. Looking out into this universe I would expect to find very little dark in space as some galaxy would be found at every spot.

In the singularity that expands within a larger space-time I would expect for mass to appear finite and for dark space to have scattered galaxies which is what we observe.

The bottom line of this is that our current gravity models may need to be adjusted to fit the universe observed, and not the one we thought to exist.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of quantum mechanics will be willing to build on our model. I will continue to educate myself on quantum mechanics, and consider that I have a long way to go. Perhaps I have just gotton off the path?

your thoughts?

barry_99 said...

To sum my thinking at this point.

Gravitons are free to roam the bulk because space-time was pre-existant. Photons are restricted to the region where mass/energy has caused distortions because the higg's field emerges as a function of distortion and only exhibits there strongly. No distortion, no higg's field. Gravity changes with time, but only by a minimal amount.

In consideration of this SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) may need to be modified, or simply placed in the correct context.

barry_99 said...

Another thought

Dark matter does not have to bond to space time to fit this model. It could end up as a dimensional boundary surrounding space-time. With each cycle of a universe, slightly more dark matter moves past the boundary of surface tension. Physical laws may change slightly with each cycle as space-time to dark matter ratios change.

I look forward to your thoughts on these subjects.

Plato said...

Hi Barry,

There are two articles that I wnated to put forward here to help orientate ones thinking in terms of a measure.


Searching for Changes in the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Clocksand the experiments that define Lorentz and CPT symmetry breaking and how they would test this.


G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1). Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of natureU(1) =electromagnetism. If you look at early event in universe creation these phase changes-> would amount to speciifc times in the universe's unfoldment. Look at standard model construction and the graph I posted for you about the question mark.

Unification of all forces would be including grvaity as the grvaiton being a force carier would add to this standard model and make it complete. The negy valuation here was given and you showed this.

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

A question you asked earlier, that I now feel may be worth answering.
What do we call this model?
Any suggestions?

regards

barry_99 said...

Another thought

Does our model predict that a black hole creates a local maximum in the Higg's field. At maximum flux density no information energy can be transferred? Symmetry broken and dark matter is the resultant component?

Plato said...

What shall we call this?We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for the mathematical treatment of continua in general, in which " size-relations " (" distances " between neighbouring points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are assigned as many numbers (Gaussian coordinates) as the continuum has dimensions. This is done in such a way, that only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and that numbers (Gaussian coordinates) which differ by an indefinitely small amount are assigned to adjacent points. The Gaussian coordinate system is a logical generalisation of the Cartesian co-ordinate system. It is also applicable to non-Euclidean continua, but only when, with respect to the defined "size" or "distance," small parts of the continuum under consideration behave more nearly like a Euclidean system, the smaller the part of the continuum under our notice.In looking back towards maxwells equation and let there be light, certain idealizations became significant to me when I understood the move from eucldiean to non euclidean views.

Gauss as a teacher of Reimann was instrumental in the geometrical interpretions that were lead into GR. Gauss was very happy in hearing his student speak.

This hallmark signature leaving the fifth postulate, understanding Giralamo Sacherri, and the new world reveallled in dimensinal analysis, is directly related to that missing energy( read my latest entry article called the same.

But now having gone in to the dynamical nature of quantum mechanics what geometry/topology would serve us well, to talk about continuos things without tearing, and this is where topologcial understanding make themselves known(use of genus figures and string amplitutdes expressed in feynman'spath integral designs.

Understanding strings then from a quantum mechancal understanding, the relationship to topological forms we see where such Genus figures now become part of the relationship of bubble technologies in the vacuum interpretaions.

I am not altogther sure I am being consistent here in alluding to the bubble tehnolgies , but having moved beyond the 10 dimensions of string theory to M theory this culmination is sought in our views of bubble formations in that early universe? there is supersymmetricla realizations when see in Andrey Kravstovs anmation of the square and the distrbution of that energy all of a sudden becoming cosmics strings?

I would need corrections here for sure.

But I parallel the name of this perspective as a leap in what happened with gaussian coordiante understandng and the understanding of the metric. Q<->Q measures reveal these interesting set of circumstance for us, and help us dee the significance of the gravitons presence in the bulk and what this energy is saying about it's congregation there. The dynamical nature of these curvatures in a quantum mechanical condition would be interesting in terms of quanum geometry.

barry_99 said...

Does our model bring anything new to the elephant? I realize that we are building on all that has come before. Specificly I refer to space-time as pre-existing and that that the end theme does not require divergence or convergence to be cyclic.

barry_99 said...

What if Hawking radiation is mediated by another metric, such as higg's field saturation that shuts down quark information. Then the only space-time componant breaking symmetry is compression.

All mass/energy would present as particles with no electroweak components. Thermodynamics approaching a limit.

The only thing getting out of here are particles of certain size with all higg's field active componants converted to particles. Any preserved symmetry would emerge as particles that must fall within a certain phase class.

We might want to consider that our last standard model derivative is not yet complete. Dark particle emissions from black hole jets have a role in the end game.

barry_99 said...

If all dark paricles fall ito a class of condensate then relativity and quantum mechanics may agree on this?

barry_99 said...

Are particles that are paired in quantum entanglement continuiously exchanging qarks?

barry_99 said...

hello Sol

Consider that a quark information transfer only takes place because our inertial time function eliminates all other possibilities. This says that a quark exchange cannot be interupted. The next exchange can be prevented and entaglement broken. Some changes may only require one or two quarks.

During quark information exchange both particles are entangled by the elimination of all other possibilities. For this reason no free quarks are found?

Do I get ahead of ourselves?

Plato said...

Mapping Quark ConfinementI need to do some homework here:)

IN the meantime I was focusing more on the dimenisonal aspect that the graviton gatherings implies to me. Tells us something about the energy in these locations in the bulk.

When I say Graviton, any gathering that is quite dense would reveal what?

If we looked in between these two quarks what would the energy reveal? Strong curvature would imply greater energy?

Plato said...

A possible explanation currently gaining ground in theoretical circles is that the fundamental scale of gravity is not really up at the Planck scale, it just seems that way. According to this school of thought, what is actually happening is that gravity, uniquely among the forces, acts in extra dimensions. This means that much of the gravitational flux is invisible to us locked into our three dimensions of space and one of time.
Consider, by analogy, what two-dimensional flatlanders would make of three-dimensional electromagnetism. To them, the flux lines of the force between two charges would appear to travel in their planar world, whereas in reality we know that most of the flux lines would spread out through a third dimension, thus weakening the force between the two charges.

barry_99 said...

If we looked in between these two quarks what would the energy reveal? Strong curvature would imply greater energy?

Yes I think so. Just as relativity implies, very large energies occur only near the ends of an asymptote.

The high energies due to curvature only becomes relavent in extreme curvature?

Where would you place dark particles in the standerd model, if indeed this is appropriate to do so?

barry_99 said...

Graviton energy looks weak because it is distributed between dimensions, or because it is spread across a space-time much larger than what we observe within the frame of our Higg's field of reference?

Space time being pre-existant then it is much larger than the area distorted by the big bang and the subsequent expansion. If space-time is multidimensional in nature then graviton navigation does traverse dimensions. Areas with very little higg's field distortion products exhibit graviton behavior differently?

Do surface tensions exhibit to us as dimensional boundaries?

Thales of Miletus said...

Where would you place dark particles in the standerd model, if indeed this is appropriate to do so?If a star collapses in upon itself and we saw this event played out again , in regards to the blackhole, I try to envision the whole event contained within a bubble.

Now I am not sure if this is correct, but I do this because I see the relevance of the standard model production, based on the event starting at one point. In this case energy production from blackhole collpase would be the second phase of a structural collapse and this is where the energy/graviton is produced to reveal anti-matter?

A Supersymmetrcial model where the temperature had to be reached for expansive properties to be disquise much as the planck epoch show in schematics.

Now while these catstrophic events are unfolding wihtin the vacuum confine of the universe these events cannot go undetected for they leave a residual message in the form of graviton dispersement everywhere in the bulk.

If we see graviton dispersement as indicators of curvature factors from gravitional wave production, then, such curvatures would also have a anti-part to play in relation to energy/graviton. dispersement into those extra dimensions?

This view sends a strong message of what basis of reality these gravitons serve, and their place in the standard model as force carriers much like the photon is in regards to electromagnetism.

This is a vital connection to what the events tell us and these photons are not separated from those events, yet in the bulk the graviton has taken the extra energy and disperse them, yet, they woud be revealling in context of strong graviton gatherings like the blackhole.

So my views of the dimensional attributes are based in part on the scaling of graviton strength just outside of the reach of the photon, yet can travel endlessly. This grvaiton would be just outside of the bubble.

Do surface tensions exhibit to us as dimensional boundaries?


Einstein photoelctric would reveal scattter off the metal plate, but would be connected to it, while the graviton is the sound produced in the water. The sound would in analogy represent the dimensions.

I would apply the sound values of high and low here in terms of graviton gathering and their strength in energy. Low sound would represent the boundaries as your question reveals(nodal points on a chaldni plate). Dvali example is a very good one.

Thales of Miletus said...

Uisng the analogy of sound, I have compared these to grvaiational waves and the grvaiatons reveal the nodal points as I have shown in my prvious post.

See this for how my views developed in this regard, and viewing Dvali's statement and analogy one should come to the sense I have now garnered around these events ithe cosmo, and how the cyclical nature is revealled.

If sound/energy/grvaions are sent into the bulk, a area teaming with grvaiaton dispersement then you can see how dynamical our universe is by turning things inside/out Klein bottle here for more introspective views, torus etc as part of a geometrical/topolgical tendency hidden from our views in dimensional attributes?

You see?

barry_99 said...

Yes, I think so. You know more about graviton than I do.

As to dark matter we know it exists due to gravitational lensing. My speculation here is that the energy plumes extending from galaxy centric black holes are due to particle emmisions. The plumes we observe are mass/energy swept into the energy stream by the particles that we do not see.

Dark matter that we do not see exerts a rotational influence on galaxies. My speculation is that dark matter is a phase of matter that black hole compression forms. Just as suns produce phase transitions for matter.

The reason dark holes produce dark matter instead of energy like suns do is key. In the extreme gravity environment of black holes the higg's field is at maximum and cannot exhibit the fluxuations necessary for quark information exchange. Bose-E condensate is dark matter or WIMPS. They exhibit no property other than gravity. They have no structure to exhibit collisions or temperature. This is the lowest phase of mass/energy and cannot be changed again. Each particle of condensate is in too low an energy state to exhibit quark information exchange.

The universe is cyclic in that all mass/energy eventually undergoes the phase transition to dark matter. While dark matter (mass condensate) exhibits gravitational lensing they cannot be clumped into groups causing large space-time distortions like mass.

Eventually they must exit space-time via bubble nucleation that moves them dimensionally. They move across the suface tension barrier of space-time. They can only do this when there is no more mass/energy for them to react with gravitationally.

When all of space-time is relaxed, with no distortions, the higg's field is not exhibited anywhere. It is space-time pressure that keeps the compacted dimension of big bang eruption sealed. A new big bang erupts causing space-time pressure that again seals the compacted dimension until this mass/energy cycle can be processed into dark matter that moves into the expanded dimension beyond space-time.

If time could not be compressed there would be no big bang. If time did not exert pressure from compression then there would be no dimensional seperation that translates as a universe changing phase in time.

For this model to be correct space-time must pre-exist the big bang. The final phase of mass/energy must be condensate and there must be dimensional attributes that arise from time compression.

Gravitons roam the bulk of all dimensions. Indeed they must be widely dispersed in the expanded dimension and heavily concentrated in the compacted dimension. They are the force carriers that shephard mass/energy from the compacted dimension, through our dimension of phase transitions, and into the expanded dimension as the final phase.

The compacted dimension is the singularity of infinite compression. The universe is where compression expands. The expanded dimension is the singularity of infinite size where there is no compression.

Your thoughts?

barry_99 said...

G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1)->...-> (Condensate)

(Singularity of big bang)->(enrgy distributions as phase transition due to electroweak interactions)-> (singularity as Bose E condensate)

The smalest energy state of mass possible would interact with gravitons but do not possess electroweak characteristics. They are condensate not due to temperature but because they do not exhibit temperature information. Nor do they exhibit solidity or quark information.

The lowest energy state possible exhibits gravity. They do not posses enough energy to even exhibit solidity so they slide right through each other. They cannot undergo any further phase transitions.

The only string vibrating in their bubble is the graviton.

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

I think that in those first three minutes there was a single local string speaking to a local one dimensionality. Energy of such high level that it was a group of self contained one dimensional particles.

At the plank scale the bubbles lost energy to vibrations in the graviton string that is non local. This decrease in energy caused the one string to break into a distribution of strings giving rise to distributed componant spin states of energy that speak to the physical properties.

As a result of phase transitions, from the entropy pressure of time, the energy is eventually transferred to the non local string.

Again there is a one dimensionality of the bubble around the non local graviton string. The only physical property of one dimensional dark energy is gravity. It no longer has enough energy to even react with the higg's field its presence generates.

Because dark energy does generate a higg's field its presence creates an influence on higher energy (higher dimensionality by strings) phases of bubbles.

It will tend to form a taurus around mass/energy. Thus is the entropy action between bubbles on non local strings and bubbles encapsulating both local and the non local string.

Do you see the symmetry of this? It is a symmetry that I have always glimpsed. You gave me the language and guidence to finally see it a little clearer and express it, I hope?

(local one dimensionality)->(local multi dimensional bubbles around non local higg's field or graviton strings)-{Higg's field dimensional bubbles transfer to graviton string}->(bubbles of one dimensional non local on graviton string)

barry_99 said...

Local one dimensional strings form bubbles that have solidity and temperature due to vibration.

At the plank scale energy transfers to non local graviton string and energy distributes into electroweak components due to the higg's field, graviton vibration generates.

Compressed to the plank scale with only non local string vibrations, energy is in the lowest phase. Somewhere in a black hole even solidity and temperature transfer from local string to graviton.

I think I should stop now and await your thoughts?

Plato said...

Hi barry,

I am having a difficult time getting my brain to work properly. Commitments and being pulled in many directions don't help.

What is important is to be lead into the world of higher dimensions and how would we do this? Some do not like this inference, and have moved it to subjects of spiritual significance?

I think this is what has happened to my views when I look at what we are capable of envisioning in our minds and the actions we take in life could be weighted in these dimensions. I hope that make sense.

But there is a true scientific explanation that I am trying tocapture, as well as explainthese abilities of mind to connect to these higher dimensions. Is this a incorrect view in your eyes?

HyperSpace : A Scientific OdysseyMichio Kaku

This trick is easily extended. For example, if we generalize the theory to N dimensions, then the N dimensional gravitational field can be split-up into the following pieces (see fig. 5). Now, out pops a generalization of the electromagnetic field, called the "Yang-Mills field," which is known to describe the nuclear forces. The nuclear forces, therefore, may be viewed as vibrations of higher dimensional space. Simply put, by adding more dimensions, we are able to describe more forces. Similarly, by adding higher dimensions and further embellishing this approach (with something called "supersymmetry), we can explain the entire particle "zoo" that has been discovered over the past thirty years, with bizarre names like quarks, neutrinos, muons, gluons, etc. Although the mathematics required to extend the idea of Kaluza has reached truly breathtaking heights, startling even professional mathematicians, the basic idea behind unification remains surprisingly simple: the forces of nature can be viewed as vibrations in higher dimensional space.

Plato said...

Barry,

I will be taking a break from our exchanges for a while.

There is a lot of good information out there for you to ponder over.

Physics forum is a good place for your more important questions. The Kaku link in previous post will take you there.

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

Yes I think so. What is important here is that our model completes the standerd model. The unification comes together in that phase transitions can be described by quantum mechanics, relativity, strings, or bubble dimensionality.

The termonology becomes interchangeble at unification. Each is descriptive of some aspect of a what cannot be described by a single view. When I look at the way our model comes together I see a lot of loose ends of each theory that come together.

Our new standerd model can be written in the notation of each method.

We need to give our model a name and organize our discussion into a coherent final form. Critical review will ascertain its merits.

Do you agree?

barry_99 said...

Hello Sol

We must have made our last two posts at about the same time. Your assistance in helping me to understanding was invaluable. I am going to organize our exchanges into a coherent form for revue. I will explore the links you suggest.

Do you wish to revue my evaluation of our efforts when I finalize it?

regards with sincere gratitude

barry_99 said...

As a result of our discussion I have outlined the energy metrics for a cyclical universe. I call it the superfluid model of dimensional energy density. Space-time scaler metrics distribute particle energy into dimensional attributes of properties.

E(energy)/S(unit Space-time) = D(density) = Di(time) + Dg(graviton scaler of gravity) + Dp(thermodynamics at planck scale temperature and solidity) + De(electroweak emergent from solidity exhibiting torsion)

Di = quarks, Di + Dg = dark matter, Di + Dg + Dp + De = mass, Di + Dp + De = photons.

De distributes into SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1)

I am presenting this at
http://www.freewebs.com/superfluid/index.htm

I would value your thoughts as our dialogue directed my thinking on this.