Pages

Showing posts with label Branes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Branes. Show all posts

Friday, February 28, 2014

Brane New World


O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.

William ShakespeareThe Tempest, Act V, Scene I, ll. 203–206[5]

Brave New World Revisited
 
The allegorical relations that one might find to the subject of Brane is more then just the grey matter, but is an extreme version of a mathematical structure opening from an accumulation of previous mathematical structures. So the Brane New World is a idea behind revolutions(a Kuhnian thesis extrapolation) that takes place in abstract thinking and how relevant it is in the whole scheme of things.

From the Renormalization Group to Quantum Gravity:


To tell you the truth the unfolding of point, line, and plane(early drawings that I had, have since been lost) to me seemed logical as one moved to the idea of cylinders and brane as a extreme journey into an abstract space that few could follow. Even for myself. I did have these early visualizations long before string theory came into the picture that lead too, me seeing a version of the intersection of such brane. I wish I could find the drawing that I did so many years ago. Why this has always piqued my interest.

  In the Kaluza-Klein picture, the extra dimensions are envisioned as being rolled up in compact space with a very small volume, with massive excited states called Kaluza-Klein modes whose mass makes them too heavy to be observed in current or future accelerators.
   The braneworld scenario for having extra dimensions while hiding them from easy detection relies on allowing the extra dimensions to be noncompact, but with a warped metric that depends on the extra dimensions and so is not a direct product space. A simple model in five spacetime dimensions is the Randall-Sundrum model, with metric See: Kaluza-Klein in String Theory

I definitely do not understand it all but I do understand the historical journey. I am glad to see that such evolutions can help people move forward in the relationship of how one may look at physics approach.

Panel Discussion: D-branes: Tools of the Revolution

***

See Also:

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Thinking Outside the Box, People Like Veneziano, Turok and Penrose

Credit: V.G.Gurzadyan and R.Penrose


Dark circles indicate regions in space where the cosmic microwave background has temperature variations that are lower than average. The features hint that the universe was born long before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and had undergone myriad cycles of birth and death before that time. See: Cosmic rebirth
***

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

Abstract: Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) posits the existence of an aeon preceding our Big Bang 'B', whose conformal infinity 'I' is identified, conformally, with 'B', now regarded as a spacelike 3-surface. Black-hole encounters, within bound galactic clusters in that previous aeon, would have the observable effect, in our CMB sky, of families of concentric circles over which the temperature variance is anomalously low, the centre of each such family representing the point of 'I' at which the cluster converges. These centres appear as fairly randomly distributed fixed points in our CMB sky. The analysis of Wilkinson Microwave Background Probe's (WMAP) cosmic microwave background 7-year maps does indeed reveal such concentric circles, of up to 6{\sigma} significance. This is confirmed when the same analysis is applied to BOOMERanG98 data, eliminating the possibility of an instrumental cause for the effects. These observational predictions of CCC would not be easily explained within standard inflationary cosmology.
Update:Penrose’s Cyclic Cosmology  by Sean Carroll

In response too....

More on the low variance circles in CMB sky

Abstract: Two groups [3,4] have confirmed the results of our paper concerning the actual existence of low variance circles in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) sky. They also point out that the effect does not contradict the LCDM model - a matter which is not in dispute. We point out two discrepancies between their treatment and ours, however, one technical, the other having to do with the very understanding of what constitutes a Gaussian random signal. Both groups simulate maps using the CMB power spectrum for LCDM, while we simulate a pure Gaussian sky plus the WMAP's noise, which points out the contradiction with a common statement [3] that "CMB signal is random noise of Gaussian nature". For as it was shown in [5], the random component is a minor one in the CMB signal, namely, about 0.2. Accordingly, the circles we saw are a real structure of the CMB sky and they are not of a random Gaussian nature. Although the structures studied certainly cannot contradict the power spectrum, which is well fitted by LCDM model, we particularly emphasize that the low variance circles occur in concentric families, and this key fact cannot be explained as a purely random effect. It is, however a clear prediction of conformal cyclic cosmology.


Sunday, March 25, 2007

Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott


It is sometimes important to know what race of rebels had been raised to realize that such a revolution in the making had started from a place of thinking that many others
began to think about as well?

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"
See here for more information.

It is important to know where such models began to influence the idea to generate theoretical model for an apprehension of how we view this universe? Given the study at hand here are the following people for consideration.

Whence began this journey and revolution?

LEONARD SUSSKIND:

And I fiddled with it, I monkeyed with it. I sat in my attic, I think for two months on and off. But the first thing I could see in it, it was describing some kind of particles which had internal structure which could vibrate, which could do things, which wasn't just a point particle. And I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string, like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not only stretch and contract, but wiggle. And marvel of marvels, it exactly agreed with this formula.
I was pretty sure at that time that I was the only one in the world who knew this.


So we have to take stock of the movements that change democratic societies. To have found such governments will change and fall according to the plight of it's citizens in science. As it goes with "theoretical positions?"

Working to understand the development of the model in consideration was needed in order for one to understand why Lee Smolin methodology to work science from a historical perspective is one I favour as well. It is sometimes necessary to list these developmental phases in order to get to a position to speak with authority. Find that "with certainty" we can make certain comments? Find, we must be confronted again, to say, any progress will go from There.

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.


So we know where the idea of science wars began do we not? What instigates conflict as a healthy perspective to progress of the sciences. We will see the story unfold within this blog.

For some reason people might of thought my views were just held to Lee Smolin and the work that I had been accumulating with regards to his views of the Universe. While I had shown the cover of his book countless times, I would like to say that I have accumulated "other books," like those of Brian Greene as well.

Does this make me an expert on the subject in question or what ever Lee Smolin has written? Of course not.

But the work I have been doing, has not been limited to what the authors themself have given to the public in their outreach writing books. I have been at this a few years now, so I would like people to think this is not just a jaunt of journalism, that has been given to the public in it's books but has been a labour of love to understand my place in the universe.

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (ISBN 0-375-70811-1) is a book by Brian Greene published in 2000 which introduces string theory and provides a comprehensive though non-technical assessment of the theory and some of its shortcomings.

Beginning with a brief consideration of classical physics, which concentrates on the major conflicts in physics, Greene establishes an historical context for string theory as a necessary means of integrating the probabilistic world of the standard model of particle physics and the deterministic Newtonian physics of the macroscopic world. Greene discusses the essential problem facing modern physics: unification of Einstein's theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Greene suggests that string theory is the solution to these two conflicting approaches. Greene uses frequent analogies and mental experiments to provide a means for the layman to come to terms with the theory which has the potential to create a unified theory of physics.

The Elegant Universe was adapted for a three hour program in two parts for television broadcast in late 2003 on the PBS series NOVA.


Thanks Q9 for the link to "Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy." I was going to posted it the day when you gave it to me, but instead seeing that Clifford of Asymptotia had it (same day), I thought I wouldn't. But as fate has it I must.

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2004) is the second book on theoretical physics, cosmology and string theory written by Brian Greene, professor and co-director of Columbia's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP).[1]
Greene begins with the key question: What is reality? Or more specifically: What is spacetime? He sets out to describe the features he finds both exciting and essential to forming a full picture of the reality painted by modern science. In almost every chapter, Greene introduces its basic concepts and then slowly builds to a climax, which is usually a scientific breakthrough. Greene then attempts to connect with his reader by posing simple analogies to help explain the meaning of a scientific concept without oversimplifying the theory behind it.

In the preface, Greene acknowledges that some parts of the book are controversial among scientists. Greene discusses the leading viewpoints in the main text, and points of contention in the end notes. Greene has striven for balanced treatment of the controversial topics. In the end notes, the diligent reader will find more complete explanations relevant to points he has simplified in the main text.


Once you get this view of the gravitational connection between everything, the form of graviton, you get this preview of the bulk and what lensing may mean. It is hard not to think of "dimensional perspectives in relation to the energy" describing the particles of science in some way. Witten below in his "Strings Unravel" lets you know what string theory has accomplished.

Warped Passages is a book by Lisa Randall, published in 2005, about particle physics in general and additional dimensions of space (cf. Kaluza-Klein theory) in particular. The book has made it to top 50 at amazon.com, making it the world's first successful book on theoretical physics by a female author. See Where are my keys?

It's alway nice having one's own blog and nice that I can retained my dignity under the name of Plato. It keeps my personal life from being treated with disrespect at the whim of the stroke of a delete key. Of course I am willing to take my lumps understanding such a role as "older student." After being expose to the exchange between people in the tribe, it's thinking can do all kinds of damage to each other? But I would like to think that all sides remain cool to positions they hold in society

A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down by Robert B. LaughlinFrom the Publisher:
Why everything we think about fundamental physical laws needs to change, and why the greatest mysteries of physics are not at the ends of the universe but as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt.

Not since Richard Feynman has a Nobel Prize-winning physicist written with as much panache as Robert Laughlin does in this revelatory and essential book. Laughlin proposes nothing less than a new way of understanding fundamental laws of science. In this age of superstring theories and Big-Bang cosmology, we're used to thinking of the unknown as being impossibly distant from our everyday lives. The edges of science, we're told, lie in the first nanofraction of a second of the Universe's existence, or else in realms so small that they can't be glimpsed even by the most sophisticated experimental techniques. But we haven't reached the end of science, Laughlin argues-only the end of reductionist thinking. If we consider the world of emergent properties instead, suddenly the deepest mysteries are as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt. And he goes farther: the most fundamental laws of physics-such as Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics -are in fact emergent. They are properties of large assemblages of matter, and when their exactness is examined too closely, it vanishes into nothing.
See Laughlin, Reductionism, Emergence

Out of all this uncertainty that exists at the level with which we think about in "those dimensions" what value any constructive diagram if it did not lead you to the understanding of the building blocks that a condense matter theorist may describe as manifesting in our reality?

The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

Columbia physicist Brian Greene inhabits a multiple-perspective landscape modeled after M.C. Escher's artwork in a scene from "The Elegant Universe," a public-TV documentary based on Greene's book.
Q: Hawking has said that there could be a “theory of everything” produced in the next 20 years, or by 2020. Do you get that same sense? Or will there ever be a theory of everything?

A: Well, I always find it difficult to make predictions that are tied to a specific time frame, because as we all know, one of the exciting things about science is that you don’t know when the big break is going to happen. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen 10 years from now, it could happen a century from now. So you just keep pressing on, making progress, and hope that you reach these major milestones — ideally in your own lifetime, but who knows? So I don’t know if 2020 is the right number to say. But I would say that string theory has a chance of being that unified theory, and we are learning more and more about it. Every day, every week, every month there are fantastically interesting developments.

Will it all come together by 2020, where we can actually have experimental proof and the theory develops to the point that it really makes definitive statements that can be tested? I don’t know. I hope so. But hope is not the thing that determines what will actually happen. It’s the hard work of scientists around the world.


But anyway onto what I wanted to say and "being censored" I couldn't.

Clifford is defending his position on how Lee Smolin and Peter Woit have assigned a "perspective view" to string theory as a modelled approach. As a theoretical discovery of science, Clifford from my view, had to show that this process is still unfolding and that any quick decision as to giving String theory such a final vote of opinion from Lee Smolin was premature. I have supported Clifford in this view because of where we had been historically in the past years that the formulation of string theory has been given.

D-Branes by Clifford V. Johnson
D-branes represent a key theoretical tool in the understanding of strongly coupled superstring theory and M-theory. They have led to many striking discoveries, including the precise microphysics underlying the thermodynamic behaviour of certain black holes, and remarkable holographic dualities between large-N gauge theories and gravity. This book provides a self-contained introduction to the technology of D-branes, presenting the recent developments and ideas in a pedagogical manner. It is suitable for use as a textbook in graduate courses on modern string theory and theoretical particle physics, and will also be an indispensable reference for seasoned practitioners. The introductory material is developed by first starting with the main features of string theory needed to get rapidly to grips with D-branes, uncovering further aspects while actually working with D-branes. Many advanced applications are covered, with discussions of open problems which could form the basis for new avenues of research.


While Clifford's book I do not have, I understand that the "second revolution" was necessary to help us move to consider where string theory was to take us. It was progressing in the theoretics as a model to help us see science assuming the ways in which such models adjust us to possible new views in science. Clifford may not of liked the implication of a Grokking of a kind that would refer to consuming model approaches and then becoming what you eat?

Clifford:
I’ve found that different people have different takes on what it means to have a “theory of everything”. There is a popular idea (perhaps the most common) that this somehow means that this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all. Others mean something less ambitious, a theory that consistently describes the four fundamental forces and the things that interact with them, achieving a unification of all the forces and phenomena that we currently understand. I personally think that the first idea of a theory of everything is rather naive, and my personal hunch (and bias from what I’ve learned about the history of science) is that there is simply no such thing.


So of course entertaining the idea of a "theory of everything" leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouth, and having them to reason that it is the naivity of such a thought, that I immediately felt insulted. Clifford saids,"this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all" and may have been the case for those less then spending the time and effort, would have probably been insulted as I was. I of course came to recognize the positive aspect of the second position Clifford assumes.

Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

Anyway there are positions that we can take when we look back and reassess everything that we have been doing in reading the public outreach, like so called "bench marks" to see if such progressions still have have a evolutionary way to go.

Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

Unravelling String Theory

But what is string theory? It may well be the only way to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, but what is the core idea behind it? Einstein understood the central concepts of general relativity years before he developed the detailed equations. By contrast, string theory has been discovered in bits and pieces — over a period that has stretched for nearly four decades — without anyone really understanding what is behind it. As a result, every bit that is unearthed comes as a surprise. We still don’t know where all these ideas are coming from — or heading to



See more here



So what shall we use to measure what had first seem so abstract in Susskind's mind as a "rubber band," or the start of Veneziano views on such strings at inception? We've come a long way.

Something that I perceived back in 2004 help to "shape my views on the way I speak" "today" allows for us to consider that strings take it's rightful place within the building blocks of matter, that following Robert Laughlins lead, it was that we shifted our times from the first three seconds of Steven Weinberg, to the "First three Microseconds" of strings within the process of the unfolding universe.

The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.
See How Particles Came to be?

While Laughlin may have not seen the continued relevance of particle reductionism it was leading to some amazing insights. I now wonder now, if held to the comparisons of this superfluid, how it would have appealed to him? I think Witten in last plate above recognized what had to be done.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Lisa Randall on Xtra Dimensions

In physics, Randall-Sundrum models imagine that the real world is a higher-dimensional Universe described by warped geometry. More concretely, our Universe is a five-dimensional anti de Sitter space and the elementary particles except for the graviton are localized on a (3 + 1)-dimensional brane or branes.

The models were proposed in 1999 by Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum while studying technicolor models.



With the online chat yesterday I'll have to look in on Sabine Hossenfelder and Stefan's of Backreaction blog entry in this regard to look at it more in depth.


Photograph by Phil Knott
Click to view for a larger version.
So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

If there are more than three dimensions out there, how does that change our picture of the universe?


The very ideas are of extra dimensions are very progressive, and are not without some history. Some people will label anything as crackpot, without understanding the history of these discussions."




Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of LAtimes.com

In the latest, hottest Big Science tome — the delightfully titled "Warped Passages" — Harvard physicist Lisa Randall describes the idea that the universe we see around us is but one tiny part of a vast reality that may include an infinite number of other universes. Randall is an expert on both cosmology and that arcane branch of particle physics known as string theory. By marrying the two fields, she and her colleagues have formulated a picture in which our universe may be seen as a soap-film-like membrane (a "braneworld") sitting inside a much larger space: the bulk. According to general relativity, the universe we live in has four dimensions: three of space and one of time. Randall's work extends this framework and posits the existence of a fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is the bulk, and within its immeasurably expanded space, there is no reason to assume that ours is the only cosmos.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

George Gabriel Stokes

Sir George Gabriel Stokes, 1st Baronet (13 August 1819–1 February 1903) was an Irish mathematician and physicist, who at Cambridge made important contributions to fluid dynamics (including the Navier-Stokes equations), optics, and mathematical physics (including Stokes' theorem). He was secretary, then president of the Royal Society.

I mean this discourse on the nature of viscosity is leading in the sense that what has been currently going in terms of RHIC "is the physics" and understanding that came about by the pursuate of elementary considerations.

Physicists Andrew Strominger and Cumrin Vafa, showed that this exact entropy formula can be derived microscopically (including the factor of 1/4) by counting the degeneracy of quantum states of configurations of strings and D-branes which correspond to black holes in string theory. This is compelling evidence that D-branes can provide a short distance weak coupling description of certain black holes! For example, the class of black holes studied by Strominger and Vafa are described by 5-branes, 1-branes and open strings traveling down the 1-brane all wrapped on a 5-dimensional torus, which gives an effective one dimensional object -- a black hole.


This is part of the understanding that with those who try to diminish the substance of this avenue of research have missed in their wide sweeping generalizations, less then adequate of string theory. You do not dismiss Strominger lightly as part of that generalization.



So in regard to multiplicities, should we dismiss the substance of the viscosity nature here while those who are less then kind about the avenue of research regarding the model string theory, find that people like Lee Smolin have decided to work with people like Clifford to deal with these physic's issues. Although he is not changing his tune in regards to the substance of this theoretical/concept/idea model, he does appreciate the science behind it.

For those who up hold the laws, and I mean the badge of the peace officer here at Backreaction. It is nice that we understand this history as it is being explained. Shall we succumb to the mechanical modes of being and we disavow "creativity" according to the limits of the law, or must we push ahead in the "greater courts" of theoretics and challenges to these laws.

Again I am reminded of Einstein's quote here.

...the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.Albert Einstein


Some would have you believe that you have acted irresponsibly in regards to model apprehsnsion about nature? Don't let them fool you or coierce you into thinking that you have disvorced yoruself from reality. If "pure thought" resides in the essence of these "mathematical forms," then where do these ensue from?


See:

  • Navier-Stokes equations
  • Sunday, September 10, 2006

    Window on the Universe

    Michio Kaku:
    I like to compare it to wandering in the desert, and stumbling over a tiny pebble. When we push away the sand, we find that this "pebble" is actually the tip of a gargantuan pyramid. After years of excavation, we find wondrous hieroglyphics, strange tunnels and secret passageways. Every time we think we are at the bottom stage, we find a stage below it. Finally, we think we are at the very bottom, and can see the doorway.

    One day, some bright, enterprising physicist, perhaps inspired by this article, will complete the theory, open the doorway, and use the power of pure thought to determine if string theory is a theory of everything, anything, or nothing.

    Only time will tell if Einstein was correct when he said, "But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."




    An Intermediate Polar Binary System. Credit & Copyright: Mark Garlick


    Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restrictied to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen.


    Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin

    Now you have to understand something here that the views of those who push our perceptions have gone even further then this, in how we look at the universe. I am showing you work that was progressing from understanding and bringing together what was going on then in 2004, to show you indeed that such an progression has taken place.

    I also point out where "Conformal Field Theory" has planted itself, as we look at the images of Bekenstein bound. Such determinations and the roads taken by Strominger point specifically to what we can measure and what we have yet to measure. This did nt relegate any theoretcial view to the "garbage dump" but allowed visionaries to see beyond the SUN/Earth relation in Lagrangian views.

    ISCAP will demonstratively help you "adjust your view" in a cosmological re-adjustment that is necessary. Not only from Glast views that arose from some fantasy, but culminates today in the use of a scientific device(calorimeter) for such measures.

    In Gamma Ray detection and the Early Universe I point the direction in how Glast in it's preparation has given us new views on how we look at the universe.

    Dust torus around a supermassive black hole
    The Astrophysical Journal, in an article titled "Integral IBIS Extragalactic survey: Active Galactic Nuclei Selected at 20-100 keV", by L. Bassani et al., published on 10 January 2006 (vol. 636, pp L65-L68).


    Meanwhile, the NASA team is now planning to extend his search for hidden black holes further out into the universe. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. In a few more months we will have a larger survey completed with the Swift mission. Our goal is to push this kind of observation deeper and deeper into the universe to see black hole activity at early epochs. That’s the next great challenge for X-ray and gamma-ray astronomers," concluded Beckmann.


    Sun Earth Relation

    Part of devloping this vision was to see in ways that the Grace satelitte allowed you to see. In what use "climate functions were happening" within the earth's atmosphere how it was being regarded. Time clock functiosn are necessary views, even within this context and such mapping allowed you to see th eearth as it had never been seen before.



    No longer is it the surprize of the "first man to step out in space" to see such a blue marble and be aw struck by it's beauty. Now we have progressed in the same views that I allude too beyound what glast has done. Glast is your measure for now. Mine, and others, excell beyond this. As I show you why.

    Dr. Mark Haskins:
    On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".


    Now how abtract these views that I will show you to think indeed "theoretcial surmize exists for the potential to push perception." Then, I will give you a real image to ponder, as satellites now progress through this superhighway.

    The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.


    In order to understand this sun/earth relation, you needed to see beyond what Glast had to impart to you. Yet, I do not say that it is irrelelavnt such experimental fashion to help us see even further. You understand this now?

    So now, I'll show you what the universe looks like.

    Diagram of the Lagrange Point gravitational forces associated with the Sun-Earth system. WMAP orbits around L2, which is about 1.5 million km from the Earth. Lagrange Points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two body system like the Sun and the Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion. The forces at L2 tend to keep WMAP aligned on the Sun-Earth axis, but requires course correction to keep the spacecraft from moving toward or away from the Earth.


    Now having this perspective in place, I am telling you what this does for perception, had I not carefully taken you through the roads to discovery. What the scale for gravity does for us in our estimation of what that universe actually looks like, when you put on glasses that change the very ideas of how we see.

    While you may see refracting of the pencil in a glass of water, you may also see that the grvaiational relation is also apparent inhow we look at the universe?

    If you do not think about the force carrier of the gravity then such extension to the standard model will only hold so much for you, while others in vision had been extended far beyond what you are accustom.

    A Better Researcher, Not a Cynic...Yessss?:)

    Sometimes there are wiser words then my own, to show what is "healthy and happy" with the research into quantum gravity? "A cynic" needs to wipe the spit from their chin, while recogizing what is really going on? We want a well balanced approach.

    Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

    Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

    Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

    Thursday, August 31, 2006

    Now, here is a SuperNova for Real

    The Crab Nebula from VLT Credit: FORS Team, 8.2-meter VLT, ESO



    Now the "ultimate proof" is to hold in our hands the matters defined by objects. This is the culmination of all dimensional perspectives, being "condensed to the moment" we hold the stardust samples in our hands. In that case, it may be of a meteorite/comet in passing?

    Now we are going back to our computers for a moment here.

    Now we know what can be done in terms of computer programming, and what simulations of events can do for us, but what happens, when we look out into space and watch events unfold as they do in our models?

    Interaction with matter
    In passing through matter, gamma radiation ionizes via three main processes: the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production.


    Photoelectric Effect: This describes the case in which a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, ejecting that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the binding energy of the electron. The photoelectric effect is the dominant energy transfer mechanism for x-ray and gamma ray photons with energies below 50 keV (thousand electron volts), but it is much less important at higher energies.
    Compton Scattering: This is an interaction in which an incident gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder of the original photon's energy being emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon with an emission direction different from that of the incident gamma photon. The probability of Compton scatter decreases with increasing photon energy. Compton scattering is thought to be the principal absorption mechanism for gamma rays in the intermediate energy range 100 keV to 10 MeV (megaelectronvolts), an energy spectrum which includes most gamma radiation present in a nuclear explosion. Compton scattering is relatively independent of the atomic number of the absorbing material.
    Pair Production: By interaction via the Coulomb force, in the vicinity of the nucleus, the energy of the incident photon is spontaneously converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. A positron is the anti-matter equivalent of an electron; it has the same mass as an electron, but it has a positive charge equal in strength to the negative charge of an electron. Energy in excess of the equivalent rest mass of the two particles (1.02 MeV) appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and the recoil nucleus. The positron has a very short lifetime (about 10-8 seconds). At the end of its range, it combines with a free electron. The entire mass of these two particles is then converted into two gamma photons of 0.51 MeV energy each.


    I wanted to include this information about Gamma Rays first so you understand what happens in space, as we get this information. I want to show you that there is faster ways that we recognize these events, and this includes, recognition of what the spacetime fabric tells us from one place in the universe, to another.

    Does it look the same? Check out, "Going SuperNova 3Dgif by Quasar9"

    Now, take a look at this below.

    Four hundred years ago, sky watchers, including the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler, were startled by the sudden appearance of a "new star" in the western sky, rivaling the brilliance of the nearby planets. Now, astronomers using NASA's three Great Observatories are unraveling the mysteries of the expanding remains of Kepler's supernova, the last such object seen to explode in our Milky Way galaxy


    What can we learn about our modelling capabilties, and what can we learn about the events in space that need to be further "mapped?" How shall we do this?

    Gamma ray indicators prepared us for something that was happening. Now with this "advance notice" we look back, and watch it unfold?

    A new image taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope provides a detailed look at the tattered remains of a supernova explosion known as Cassiopeia A (Cas A). It is the youngest known remnant from a supernova explosion in the Milky Way. The new Hubble image shows the complex and intricate structure of the star's shattered fragments. The image is a composite made from 18 separate images taken in December 2004 using Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS).


    If advance indication are possible besides gamma ray detection, then what form would this take? Could we map the events as we learn of what happen in LIGO or LIsa operations, and how the "speed of light" is effected in a vacuum?

    Now this comes to the second part, and question of indications of information released to the "bulk perspective" as the event unfolds as this SuperNova is.

    Bulk:
    Note that in the type IIA and type IIB string theories closed strings are allowed to move everywhere throughout the ten-dimensional space-time (called the bulk), while open strings have their ends attached to D-branes, which are membranes of lower dimensionality (their dimension is odd - 1,3,5,7 or 9 - in type IIA and even - 0,2,4,6 or 8 - in type IIB, including the time direction).


    Now advancement in model assumption pushes perspective where it did not exist before.

    You had to understand the nature of "GR" in pushing perspective, in the way this post is unfolding. Gamma ray indicators, are events that are "tied to the brane" and in this sense, information is held to the brane. The "fermion principle" and identifcation of Type IIA and IIB is necessary, as part of the move to M theory?

    Thus when we look at Gamma rays they are not "separate from the event" while the bulk perspective, allows geoemtrics to invade the "new world" beyond the confines of non-euclidean geometries.

    As I pointed out, the succession of Maxwell and all the eqautions (let there be light) are still dveloped from the center outwards, and in this perspective gravitational waves wrap the event. Thus the "outer most covering" is a much higher vision and dynamical nature, then what we assume as "ripples in space."

    Bulk perspectve is a necessary revision/addition to how we think and include gravitational waves, by incorporating the "gravitonic perception" as a force carrier and extension of the Standard model.

    While it has been thought by me to include the "Tachyon question", as a faster then light entity, the thought is still of some puzzlement that this information precedes the gamma ray detection, and hence, serves to elucidate the understanding of our perceptions of the early events as they unfold, as a more "sounding" reason to how we look at these early events?

    If those whose views have been entertaining spacetravel, as I have exemplified in previous post, then it was of some importance that model enhancement would serve to help the future of spacetravel in all it's outcomes, as we now engaged, as ISCAP is engaging.

    See:

  • Einstein@Home


  • LIGO:
  • Sunday, July 16, 2006

    Star Lite Public Outreach



    In regards to the QGP(Quark Gluon Plasma) I thought such a creation important from the ideas of what happens in assessing any beginning?



    This thought arose from what was revealled in terms of "Microstate blackhole" production and the circumstances from such gold ion collisions.

    If we are lead experimentally to such a place, then what may we say of "reductionistic circumstances" and it's relation to the beginning of the universe?



    In my GRand Quantum conjecture, such thinking to have established the origins of "quantum perception" along with the understanding of GR and it's curvatures?

    Who would of thought such "an application" and ignore what is driving the perspective around blackhole hole creation? It's "microstate properties?"

    Andy Strominger:
    This was a field theory that lived on a circle, which means it has one spatial dimension and one time dimension. We derived the fact that the quantum states of the black hole could be represented as the quantum states of this one-plus-one dimensional quantum field theory, and then we counted the states of this theory and found they exactly agreed with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.


    I pointed out "Strominger" in this case to help direct the "existance of perception" simultaneously of what is being related, not only in our early universe, but from the understanding of what "quantum perception" is doing in relation to reductionistcally driven physics?

    Such a "relation and assumption of microstate blackholes," helps to direct supersymmetrical ideas, to what the "collapse of the blackhole is doing" in terms of the creation of this quark Gluon plasma state.

    Are they the same in terms of what happens in the cosmological blackhole and what is created in the collider?

    Ask a Astrophysicist

    The Question:Can you explain to me what quantum gravity is, and if so how does it relate to black holes?

    A quantum theory of gravity would involve particles passing 'gravitons' back and forth among themselves. This quantum theory would probably be a more accurate description of gravity, and might be accurate enough to describe the extreme conditions found at the center of a black hole.


    They both from what I have understood so far would have needed to account for the "classifications" Strominger had pointed out for us?

    What is Blackhole Entrophy?

    Suppose we have a box filled with gas of some type of molecule called M. The temperature of that gas in that box tells us the average kinetic energy of those vibrating molecules of gas. Each molecule as a quantum particle has quantized energy states, and if we understand the quantum theory of those molecules, theorists can count up the available quantum microstates of those molecules and get some number. The entropy is the logarithm of that number.

    When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.


    One would have had to conclude that the "energy states" are very importnat here, as well as the nature, and the way such a process is related in terms of those reductionsitic energy derivations?

    Who is Boltzman? What is Chaos?

    In the presence of gravitational field (or, in general, of any potential field) the molecules of gas are acted upon by the gravitational forces. As a result the "concentration of gas molecules" is not the same at various points of the space and described by Boltzman distribution law:


    The "energy and decay(gravitonically considered and extended from the implication of GR)" have to be reconciled in our understanding of the blackhole, in regards to the nature of the microstate blackhole perceptions? The "evidentry" particle creations exemplify the energy distributions?

    Friday, June 23, 2006

    THEORETICAL MATHEMATICS

    Before I was to ask the question below I had gone through the links given by Alejandro RIvero and in and thinking of the work I had been doing to understand this relation between mathematics and the physics world.

    Of course as you know I am deeply involved in building a "foundational perspective" in a number of ways, which takes up a enormous amount of time. So having these oportunities to advance my thinking, are extremely difficult now, besides putting in a full days work in the heat and misquitos.

    I ask this question on Cosmic Variance for obvious reasons.

    A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS by Alain CONNES

    Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

    Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.


    After reading here, some things pop into my mind about the work I had gathered from Hooft, on the defintions of "theoretical developement."

    When I read this it seem to bring it together a little more for me.


    String theory clearly appears to be strikingly coherent. What seems to be missing presently, however, is a clear description of the local nature of its underlying physical laws. In all circumstances encountered until now, it has been imperative that external fields, in- and outgoing strings and D-branes are required to obey their respective field equations, or lie on their respective mass shells. Thus, only effects due to external perturbations can be computed when these external perturbations obey equations of motion. To me, this implies that we do not understand what the independent degrees of freedom are, and there seems to be no indication that these can be identified. String theoreticians are right in not allowing themselves to be disturbed by this drawback.


    So you know you are stifled by a problem? You need ways in which to think about this?

    So, in thinking about the mathematics and physics involved, are the two so wide apart that we can say that the world of the "theoretical mathematics" is so far from the reality of the "average human being," that they are to smart for us? Or is it, that they "see" in different ways?

    That is the jest of what I see in Dirac's wordings I highlight or Alain CONNES words for more thinking. It is not enough for me to be dismissed out of hand on "string theory", for what has been experimentally challenged, should be cast aside for, "other roads to quantum gravity," so easy.

    I see something beautiful in it myself, of course, being biased from the "position of speaking" that I do by name only:)

    Responsibiity of course rings very well within my mind, as I write these words. It is not my intention to take people down roads and divert them from the roads that lead them to quantum gravity? But to keep my self critically thinking about the problems that are being spoken by, engaging in, the topic Sean produced in "stringtheory backlash."

    There is some healing that needs to be taken care of, that has been inflicted on those who are speaking, for and against string theory, while it is perspectve "on vision" that must be maintained? The algebraic equations are something I am working on to develope.

    Saturday, May 06, 2006

    Bulk Perspective, As Sound?



    Let's say, it all depends on how you would like to look at the universe. Develope your constructs, to tell you how it is the universe came into being and such. A picture then, could become a thousand words? Links on pictures are always important too.

    Have you read of the way sonoluminece works?



    Let's not worry about the "energy production" for now, other then, the sound and it's application there? Are any of you familiar?

    If one holds to the bulk perspective, and you would have to know what I mean by the bulk, then, such concentrations would have held perspectve to the gatherings and created the circumstances for new universe to be borne?



    If one types in the "search function" at the top left hand corner the word "bulk," of the blog as I did, with the word, "sound," then a page will come up that will help explain that term. How it is used. The Picture and it's link will be most useful as well.

    Friday, April 21, 2006

    What a Good String Theorist Should Know?




    Arthur Miller
    Einstein and Schrödinger never fully accepted the highly abstract nature of Heisenberg's quantum mechanics, says Miller. They agreed with Galileo's assertion that "the book of nature is written in mathematics", but they also realized the power of using visual imagery to represent mathematical symbols.



    I am a bit of a fanatic when it comes to the visualizations. What benefit might these have for any good theorist? What creative ability is developed, when one sees this way?

    To me, as it has been described with Dirac wording that I have spell out many a time, there is also all this "other information" that has to be followed up. I know it. Many science people know it. Maybe sometimes, caught up in all the aspirations for truth, I might not remember it. So this post is here for this purpose.

    You have to trust me that I will not be knocking on any good scientists door, being the crackpot that I am, with some amazing discovery.I just don't have time to bother you good science people.:)

    Anyway, I thought I should clear up some ideas people have about learning. Getting some insight into what is being talked about in regards to theoretical ideas being borne, what learning the older folk like me can look forward too. The last part of this post is in regards to Think Quest comments on string theory.

    Personally, I think a good theoretician needs to know a lot.

    I found information provided by Gerard t’ Hooft which gives one a a good base to what he thought we should be doing. So I wanted to include some of that here as well. Also by including each of the links, typing into the "search fucntion," this post, should come up, and the related subjects, as to what should be known.

    I created one on the requirements of mathematics sometime ago as well so this would be a good source link as well to the requirements needed to work within the string theory realm. I am still looking for it. You cna see now why this post is good for memory retention being somewhat lost as to where it is put under.

    Is your motivation and pursuance of knowledge up to it?

    HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICISTby Gerard 't Hooft



    Theoretical Physics is like a sky scraper. It has solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don't think that pre-20th century physics is "irrelevant" since now we have so much more. In those days, the solid foundations were laid of the knowledge that we enjoy now. Don't try to construct your sky scraper without first reconstructing these foundations yourself. The first few floors of our skyscraper consist of advanced mathematical formalisms that turn the Classical Physics theories into beauties of their own. They are needed if you want to go higher than that. So, next come many of the other subjects listed below. Finally, if you are mad enough that you want to solve those tremendously perplexing problems of reconciling gravitational physics with the quantum world, you end up studying general relativity, superstring theory, M-theory, Calabi-Yau compactification and so on. That's presently the top of the sky scraper. There are other peaks such as Bose-Einstein condensation, fractional Hall effect, and more. Also good for Nobel Prizes, as the past years have shown. A warning is called for: even if you are extremely smart, you are still likely to get stuck somewhere. Surf the net yourself. Find more. Tell me about what you found. If this site has been of any help to someone while preparing for a University study, if this has motivated someone, helped someone along the way, and smoothened his or her path towards science, then I call this site successful. Please let me know. Here is the list.



  • Languages





  • Primary Mathematics





  • Classical Mechanics





  • Optics





  • Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics





  • Electronics





  • Electromagnetism





  • Quantum Mechanics





  • Atoms and Molecules





  • Solid State Physics





  • Nuclear Physics





  • Plasma Physics





  • Advanced Mathematics





  • Special Relativity





  • Advanced Quantum Mechanics





  • Phenomenology





  • General Relativity





  • Quantum Field Theory





  • Superstring Theory





  • Think Math

    While I quickly jumped to the end of the third page of reference below, it summarizes a bit as to what culminations might be found with the math in all it's aspects describe as the language. The language(herein described as the math), brings it together nicely. Whole.

    Guide to Math, by Superstringtheory.com
    Noncommutative geometry (NCG for short)


    Geometry was originally developed to describe physical space that we can see and measure. After modern mathematics was freed from Euclid's Fifth Axiom by Gauss and Bolyai, Riemann added to modern geometry the abstract notion of a manifold M with points that are labeled by local coordinates that are real numbers, with some metric tensor that determines an extremal length between two points on the manifold.

    Much of the progress in 20th century physics was in applying this modern notion of geometry to spacetime, or to quantum gauge field theory.

    In the quest to develop a notion of quantum geometry, as far back as 1947, people were trying to quantize spacetime so that the coordinates would not be ordinary real numbers, but somehow elevated to quantum operators obeying some nontrivial quantum commutation relations. Hence the term "noncommutative geometry," or NCG for short.

    The current interest in NCG among physicists of the 21st century has been stimulated by work by French mathematician Alain Connes.



    While the truer quest of seeing is in the world of mathematics used besides english, is the real language of commonality among scientists. It serves them well to understand how all these maths could add up too, what is required of those students of youth, and youth of mind of those advacing in age, that we see this described someplace.


    Nature's patterns

    So who is right? Well, there is much that is attractive in the Platonist point of view. It's tempting to see our everyday world as a pale shadow of a more perfect, ordered, mathematically exact one. For one thing, mathematical patterns permeate all areas of science. Moreover, they have a universal feel to them, rather as though God thumbed His way through some kind of mathematical wallpaper catalogue when He was trying to work out how to decorate His Universe. Not only that: the deity's pattern catalogue is remarkably versatile, with the same patterns being used in many different guises. For example, the ripples on the surface of sand dunes are pretty much identical to the wave patterns in liquid crystals. Raindrops and planets are both spherical. Rainbows and ripples on a pond are circular. Honeycomb patterns are used by bees to store honey (and to pigeonhole grubs for safekeeping), and they can also be found in the geographical distribution of territorial fish, the frozen magma of the Giant's Causeway, and rock piles created by convection currents in shallow lakes. Spirals can be seen in water running out of a bath and in the Andromeda Galaxy. Frothy bubbles occur in a washing-up bowl and the arrangement of galaxies.


    Imagine calling someone with this background "flaky" because of a "strange idea" that might be borne in mind, while it is encompassed by all this knowledge of science, respectively? People who had been well intentioned, hiding all the information because they might have been taunted by those who were not respectful of the age of reason, with which they had applied them self.

    I think every teacher, Mother, Father understands the best they have for their student, child respectively, and what they strive to encourage in regards to the independence and strength, to move forward with the motivation that is borne in every good seeker of truth?


    ThinkQuest
    Think Quest is all about students thinking and learning together. Students work in teams to create the best educational websites and compete for exciting prizes, including a trip to Think Quest Live, an educational extravaganza celebrating their achievements.

    Sponsored by the Oracle Education Foundation, the competition offers a unique project-based learning experience to students and teachers around the world. Globally relevant subjects and diverse teams are encouraged.
    The teams' websites are published for the world to see in the Think Quest Library. This rich online resource contains over 5,500 educational websites, created by students for students. Search the library and you'll be sure to find a site that intrigues you.


    Information Links Below Created by Dan Corbett, Kate Stafford, and Patrick Wright for ThinkQuest.



  • The History of String Theory:






  • Introduction to String Theory:






  • Gravity and String Theory:






  • Supersymmetry:






  • The Dimensions of String Theory:






  • Dimensions, Wound Strings, Branes, and Calabi-Yau Spaces:






  • The Many Types of String Theory:






  • New Developments in String Theory:





  • Well so easily explained in the english language, Gerard's comments about explaining what we are doing now bears fruit? My inept capilities with this of courses draws recognition, let alone, the need to write those visionary qualities to algebraic equations. So Penrose has more words for us, besides his change of heart?:)

    You think it easy to change the ingraininess of our methods that we should let them drop away easily? Find a new path/math with a heart? It is not without thinking that such decisions are made.

    [ROGER PENROSE]


    "One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER]...is the fact that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and because of the general way in which things at that time had to be explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him. Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps. This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."


    A more direct link to quote above on page 12.

    Friday, March 03, 2006

    All Particles of the Standard Model and Beyond

    Polchinski Elected Member Of National Academy of Sciences

    Polchinski's discovery of D-branes and their properties is, according to the Academy citation, "one of the most important insights in 30 years of work on string theory."


    Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

    From one mechanic to another

    I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

    After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

    Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

    So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

    So what things did I learn?

    That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

    After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

    Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

    Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

    After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.



    These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

    If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

    As a layman, this was proving itself, as I looked at the diversity of the geometrical models choosen to represent that abstract world. See B Field and Hitchins. Genus Figures, and topology, on this site.

    More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

    The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

    IMpressional Minds
    If as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

    That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

    So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

    The Reductionistic Process
    Is it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?



    So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.



    So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

    Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

    So both events involved, "microstate blackhole" recognitions.

    Post removed from Peter Woits comment section

    In regards to facing nightmares

    In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced."

    The link was added here now.

    If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

    The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

    Jack has some explaining to do?


    Update
    (To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

    He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)


    Anyway. As I was saying.

    This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

    To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

    Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

    See:

  • History of the Universe and the Standard model