Pages

Showing posts with label Cerenkov Radiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cerenkov Radiation. Show all posts

Saturday, April 21, 2012

A Blue Flash in Ice

Little is known about the ultra high-energy cosmic rays that regularly penetrate the atmosphere. Recent IceCube research rules out the leading theory that they come from gamma ray bursts. (Credit: NSF/J. Yang)

Future directions 

The lack of observation of neutrinos in coincidence with GRBs implies, at face value, that the theoretical models need to be revisited. “Calculations embracing the concept that cosmic ray protons are the decay products of neutrons that escaped the magnetic confinement of the GRB fireball are supported by the research community and have been convincingly excluded by the present data,” says Francis Halzen, IceCube principle investigator and a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "IceCube will continue to collect more data with a final, better calibrated and better understood detector in the coming years." Since April 2011, IceCube has collected neutrino data using the full detector array. With the larger detector, researchers can see more neutrinos, providing a “higher resolution” picture of the neutrino sky. See: Cosmic Rays: 100 years of mystery

See Also: IceCube Neutrino Observatory Explores Origin of Cosmic Rays




IceCube’s 5,160 digital optical modules are suspended from 86 strings reaching a mile and a half below the surface at the South Pole. Each sphere contains a photomultiplier tube and electronics to capture the faint flashes of muons speeding through the ice, their direction and energy – and thus that of the neutrinos that created them – tracked by multiple detections. At lower left is the processed signal of an energetic muon moving upward through the array, created by a neutrino that traveled all the way through the Earth.


“This result represents a coming-of-age of neutrino astronomy,” says Nathan Whitehorn from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led the recent GRB research with Peter Redl of the University of Maryland. “IceCube, while still under construction, was able to rule out 15 years of predictions and has begun to challenge one of only two major possibilities for the origin of the highest-energy cosmic rays, namely gamma-ray bursts and active galactic nuclei.”


Redl says, “While not finding a neutrino signal originating from GRBs was disappointing, this is the first neutrino astronomy result that is able to strongly constrain extra-galactic astrophysics models, and therefore marks the beginning of an exciting new era of neutrino astronomy.” The IceCube Collaboration’s report on the search appears in the April 19, 2012, issue of the journal Nature. See: Where Do the Highest-Energy Cosmic Rays Come From? Probably Not from Gamma-Ray Bursts

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Elementary Particles in the Decay Chain

 The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to gravitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the total field.Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein (bold added for emphasis by me)

What anchors me to reality is the understanding that what will be displayed in the particle chain and here there was some debate in my mind.....literately..... I seem to be questioning whether this decay chain or elementary connection should even be described as a chain. What had me thinking this way is how pervasive we could say energy is inclusive as a statement that we might say the chain of events lists all that is of value in that energy disposition. Cosmic Ray Spallation,  or Jet, seemed fitting to me that such articulation of the collision process would have amounted to so many descriptions of the one thing contained in the dissipation of energy.



I am not even sure of what I am talking about here.....but as most times my mind seems to be working even while I am suppose to be asleep. I catch the tail end of things and and do you think it is ever clear what it is I am after in my understanding to know that I could write it all down and be so perfecting clear. And as a layman to boot,  how confusing I could make it for others.

Once produced, the neutral Xi-sub-b (Symbol for Xi-sub-b) particle travels about a millimeter before it disintegrates into two particles: the short-lived, positively charged Xi-sub-c (Symbol Xi-sub-c^+) and a long-lived, negative pion (π-). The Xi-sub-c then promptly decays into a pair of long-lived pions and a Xi particle (Symbol pi^-), which lives long enough to leave a track in the silicon vertex system (SVX) of the CDF detector before it decays a pion and a Lambda (Λ). The Lambda particle, which has no electric charge, can travel several centimeters before decaying into a proton (p) and a pion (π). Credit: CDF collaboration and Fermi

Well such things start often by the exposure of the many pictures that I have captured on the internet in order to understand that such decay chains are relevant I think in how we see the development of the hierarchy of energy used to determine particle collisions. Of course I am not a scientist so I have to be really careful here.

Six of the particles in the Standard Model are quarks (shown in purple). Each of the first three columns forms a generation of matter.

***


So while I am never completely sure in my entirety the journey through science can I say has been with such consistency? Could I say my classroom has been all over the place and my enduring appeal for knowledge could have been the dissemination of so many wrong things.

I truly do not understand at what point that I started to be the convert to a relativistic discretion of the world as a legitimate expression of the universe contained in our undertaking of the decay chain. Is this what the debating is all about in my mind as I wrestle to explain where I have been and where I am going?

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology




So for me what does this all have to do with the basis of how we might look at the cosmos and see such description will help us form a geometrical presence of the universe to know that we are using a relativistic interpretation to actually help us to describe the nature of expression of the universe as Omega.


Friedman Equation What is pdensity.
What are the three models of geometry? k=-1, K=0, k+1
Omega=the actual density to the critical density
If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given? See: Non Euclidean Geometry and the Universe

So while I am working to be consistent with the understanding of dimensional representation of the universe one may see how I have catapulted myself past the euclidean description of the world to move into the relativistic realm of expression based in  geometrical expressions. This allowed me to contained my views on Cherenkov as relativistic expressions detailed in an area that one may of assigned to missing energy events.


Further it may be of some help to understand that by "developing an theorem for particulate expression in relation to dimensional attribution" was significant to me (degrees of freedom) to have such development along side of the development of geometry as a viable approach to furthering our looking into the very nature of the world in which we live.  Genus figure descriptions contained in the valley have to be developed in relation to how we see possible expression, as a sign of the pencil falling one way or how a stone may roll down a hill, as a asymmetrical expression of the way in which the universe began and developed along the decay chain of energy dissipation?

***




Monday, October 31, 2011

Gran Sasso and Fermilab

Gran Sasso

***
deconstruction: soudan mural
The Soudan mural is next to the 6000-ton MINOS detector. Mural artists: Joseph Giannetti, Leila Giannetti, Mick Pulsifer. Funded by a grant from the University of Minnesota. (Credit: Fermilab Visual Media Services)
***
Fermilab experiment weighs in on neutrino mystery
Scientists of the MINOS experiment at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced today (June 24) the results from a search for a rare phenomenon, the transformation of muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos. The result is consistent with and significantly constrains a measurement reported 10 days ago by the Japanese T2K experiment, which announced an indication of this type of transformation.

The results of these two experiments could have implications for our understanding of the role that neutrinos may have played in the evolution of the universe. If muon neutrinos transform into electron neutrinos, neutrinos could be the reason that the big bang produced more matter than antimatter, leading to the universe as it exists today.

The Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) at Fermilab recorded a total of 62 electron neutrino-like events. If muon neutrinos do not transform into electron neutrinos, then MINOS should have seen only 49 events. The experiment should have seen 71 events if neutrinos transform as often as suggested by recent results from the Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) experiment in Japan. The two experiments use different methods and analysis techniques to look for this rare transformation.
To measure the transformation of muon neutrinos into other neutrinos, the MINOS experiment sends a muon neutrino beam 450 miles (735 kilometers) through the earth from the Main Injector accelerator at Fermilab to a 5,000-ton neutrino detector, located half a mile underground in the Soudan Underground Laboratory in northern Minnesota. The experiment uses two almost identical detectors: the detector at Fermilab is used to check the purity of the muon neutrino beam, and the detector at Soudan looks for electron and muon neutrinos. The neutrinos’ trip from Fermilab to Soudan takes about one four hundredths of a second, giving the neutrinos enough time to change their identities.

For more than a decade, scientists have seen evidence that the three known types of neutrinos can morph into each other. Experiments have found that muon neutrinos disappear, with some of the best measurements provided by the MINOS experiment. Scientists think that a large fraction of these muon neutrinos transform into tau neutrinos, which so far have been very hard to detect, and they suspect that a tiny fraction transform into electron neutrinos.

The observation of electron neutrino-like events in the detector in Soudan allows MINOS scientists to extract information about a quantity called sin213 (pronounced sine squared two theta one three). If muon neutrinos don’t transform into electron neutrinos, this quantity is zero. The range allowed by the latest MINOS measurement overlaps with but is narrower than the T2K range. MINOS constrains this quantity to a range between 0 and 0.12, improving on results it obtained with smaller data sets in 2009 and 2010. The T2K range for sin213 is between 0.03 and 0.28.
“MINOS is expected to be more sensitive to the transformation with the amount of data that both experiments have,” said Fermilab physicist Robert Plunkett, co-spokesperson for the MINOS experiment. “It seems that nature has chosen a value for sin213 that likely is in the lower part of the T2K allowed range. More work and more data are really needed to confirm both these measurements.”
The MINOS measurement is the latest step in a worldwide effort to learn more about neutrinos. MINOS will continue to collect data until February 2012. The T2K experiment was interrupted in March when the severe earth quake in Japan damaged the muon neutrino source for T2K. Scientists expect to resume operations of the experiment at the end of the year. Three nuclear-reactor based neutrino experiments, which use different techniques to measure sin213, are in the process of starting up.
“Science usually proceeds in small steps rather than sudden, big discoveries, and this certainly has been true for neutrino research,” said Jenny Thomas from University College London, co-spokesperson for the MINOS experiment. “If the transformation from muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos occurs at a large enough rate, future experiments should find out whether nature has given us two light neutrinos and one heavy neutrino, or vice versa. This is really the next big thing in neutrino physics.”
The MINOS experiment involves more than 140 scientists, engineers, technical specialists and students from 30 institutions, including universities and national laboratories, in five countries: Brazil, Greece, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Funding comes from: the Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Science Foundation in the U.S., the Science and Technology Facilities Council in the U.K; the University of Minnesota in the U.S.; the University of Athens in Greece; and Brazil's Foundation for Research Support of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP) and National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Fermilab is a national laboratory supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy, operated under contract by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC.
For more information about MINOS and related experiments, visit the Fermilab neutrino website: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/experiments/intensity/

See: 

Intensity Frontier


See Also: The Reference Frame: CMS: a very large excess of diphotons

Thursday, October 27, 2011

XKCD Significant-Speed of Light Issue?

You got to love it when correlations can be made, and a thank you to the ICECUBE Blog
If the histograms and data are exactly right, the paper quotes a one-in-ten-thousand (0.0001) chance that this bump is a fluke. That's pretty small; although bear in mind that lots of distributions like this get plotted. If you plot 100 different distributions, the chances become about one in a hundred (0.01) that you'll see something odd in one of them. The Tevatron goes bump

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png

Friday, October 07, 2011

Cohen-Glashow Argument

Bee:And for all I know you need a charge for Cherenkov radiation and neutrinos don't have one.



Fig. 1: Cerenkov radiation involves the nearly continuous emission of photons by a charged particle moving faster than the speed of light in its vicinity. The charged particle gradually radiates away its energy. Cohen-Glashow emission involves the occasional creation, near a speeding neutrino, of an electron-positron pair, in which the neutrino loses a large fraction of its energy in one step.


But these details almost don’t matter, because Cohen and Glashow then put another chunk of powerful evidence on the table. They point out that neutrinos have been observed, at two other experiments, SuperKamiokande and IceCube, 100 to 1000 times more energetic than the neutrinos in OPERA’s beam. These neutrinos come out of the earth having traveled many hundreds or thousands of kilometers across interior of the planet. The fact that these neutrinos did not lose most of their energy while traveling all that distance implies that they, too, did not undergo CG emission. In short, they must have traveled very close to, and conservatively no more than about fifteen parts per billion faster than, the speed of light in empty space. (The limit from IceCube data may be as good as ten parts per trillion!)See: Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

P.I. Chats: Faster-than-light neutrinos?

Measurements by GPS confirm that the neutrinos identified by the Super-Kamiokande detector were indeed produced on the east coast of Japan. The physicists therefore estimate that the results obtained point to a 99.3% probability that electron neutrino appearance was detected.Neutrino Oscillations Caught in the Act



The Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LNGS) is one of four INFN national laboratories.




PERIMETER INSTITUTE RECORDED SEMINAR ARCHIVE



PIRSA:11090135  ( Flash Presentation , MP3 , PDF ) Which Format?
P.I. Chats: Faster-than-light neutrinos?
Abstract: Can neutrinos really travel faster than light? Recently released experimental data from CERN suggests that they can. Join host Dr. Richard Epp and a panel of Perimeter Institute scientists in a live webinar to discuss this unexpected and puzzling experimental result, and some theoretical questions it might raise.
Date: 28/09/2011 - 12:15 pm
Thanks Phil 

***



Using the NuMI beam to search for electron neutrino appearance.

The NOνA Experiment (Fermilab E929) will construct a detector optimized for electron neutrino detection in the existing NuMI neutrino beam. The primary goal of the experiment is to search for evidence of muon to electron neutrino oscillations. This oscillation, if it occurs, holds the key to many of the unanswered questions in neutrino oscillation physics. In addition to providing a measurement of the last unknown mixing angle, θ13, this oscillation channel opens the possibility of seeing matter/anti-matter asymmetries in neutrinos and determination of the ordering of the neutrino mass states.See:The NOνA Experiment at Fermilab (E929)

***

Image from a neutrino detection experiment. (Credit: Image courtesy of Southern Methodist University)

Hunting Oscillation of Muon to Electron: Neutrino Data to Flow in 2010; NOvA Scientists Tune Design


Bee:And for all I know you need a charge for Cherenkov radiation and neutrinos don't have one.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector

New results from OPERA on neutrino propertieslive from Main Amphitheatre.

“This result comes as a complete surprise,” said OPERA spokesperson, Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern. “After many months of studies and cross checks we have not found any instrumental effect that could explain the result of the measurement. While OPERA researchers will continue their studies, we are also looking forward to independent measurements to fully assess the nature of this observation.” 


 “When an experiment finds an apparently unbelievable result and can find no artefact of the measurement to account for it, it’s normal procedure to invite broader scrutiny, and this is exactly what the OPERA collaboration is doing, it’s good scientific practice,” said CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. “If this measurement is confirmed, it might change our view of physics, but we need to be sure that there are no other, more mundane, explanations. That will require independent measurements.”See:OPERA experiment reports anomaly in flight time of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso




Have we considered their mediums of expression to know that we have witnessed Cerenkov radiation as a process in the faster than light, to know the circumstances of such expressions to have been understood as backdrop measures of processes we are familiar with. Explain the history of particulate expressions from vast distances across our universe?

The OPERA Detector


This is something very different though and it will be very interesting the dialogue and thoughts shared so as to look at the evidence in a way that helps us to consider what is sound in it's understanding, as speed of light.

See Also:

Friday, February 22, 2008

The Effect of Cosmic Particle Collisions



How many with holding views of Climate Change have ever considered Earth's place in the cosmos and it's affects created from cosmic particle collisions from space?

So this post is to help illuminate the subject a bit with past information so you get the understanding and where they are todays in terms of science's research. Also I wanted to include my own observation I made that were readily evident as we watch a forest get disseminated by beetle infestation.

So that is part of it, that climate may produce pictures on Glacier withdrawals in relation to previous year's pictures. What other contributions should be considered then?


Finding a heavenly key to climate change


Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) in Geneva are looking at how radiation from outer space could be affecting our environment.

A new cutting edge experiment aims to discover how exactly cosmic rays and the Sun may influence the formation of low level clouds, and possibly climate change.

More than two centuries ago, the British Astronomer Royal William Herschel noted a correlation between sunspots an indicator of solar activity and the price of wheat in England. He suggested that when there were few sunspots, prices rose.

However, up until recently, there was little to back up this hypothesis. Today, inside an unassuming some would say decrepit:looking building at Cern, the Cloud (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) experiment might help explain how the Sun affects the climate
.


See: Finding a heavenly key to climate change

Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage by Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996

Chaos and Complexity

Robert Betts Laughlin (born November 1, 1950) is a professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University who, together with Horst L. Störmer and Daniel C. Tsui, was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Physics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. In the period of 2004-2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.

Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline on the existence of black holes.
See: Robert B. Laughlin

The Emergent Age, by Robert Laughlin

The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements - in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously.

Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important - fundamental or emergent - but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children's children, the higher organizational laws of the world.


Understanding the occurrence of natural things happening within earth's environments has a resulting affect to one's children's children here within the very make up of reality. How would know what is happening and the resulting affect moving toward societies if you did not dig deeper and understand that a reductionist effect is very evident.

Predictability was moved toward "Mercuries orbit" while the oscillatory nature of events resonant deeper into society. WE had learnt to propel satellites through space using minimum booster propellants by understanding these relations.

The Roots of Chaos Theory

The roots of chaos theory date back to about 1900, in the studies of Henri Poincaré on the problem of the motion of three objects in mutual gravitational attraction, the so-called three-body problem. Poincaré found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale, who was perhaps the first pure mathematician to study nonlinear dynamics, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

13:30 Lecture
Edward Norton Lorenz
Laureate in Basic Sciences
“How Good Can Weather Forecasting Become ? – The Star of a Theory”


So on the one hand if we are giving new perspective to the events of climate change and we look at what is happening not only with wheat fields in relation to sun spot activities, we need to understand it's effect, by the presence of natural events occurring as well.

Pine Beetle Infestation


Adult mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae


The Suzuki Foundation has published some of the most recent and most exhaustive research on mountain pine beetle epidemics in BC, but it appears the provincial government is only interested in receiving information from an industry perspective, he added.

“We actually were asked by the Premier’s office to attend tomorrow’s symposium, but when we received the agenda early this week we saw we weren’t on it. When I called to inquire, I was told we could observe from the audience but not present our report called Salvaging Solutions.

“I am absolutely flabbergasted and in fact insulted. In 25 years of attending such forums, as a Member of Parliament and for 10 years at the Suzuki Foundation, I have never been invited by a senior government official to travel 400 kilometres so that I can be window dressing. You have to wonder who on Earth is running Premier Campbell’s office and if they are really interested in gathering all of the best information on this issue.”


Photo by Lorraine Maclauchlan, Ministry of Forests, Southern Interior Forest Region
See:Mountain Pine Beetle Photos

Could Climate change play a role in this? If this is so, and is there some evidence that suggests, that our cold winters are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, this spread could go unabated?

The process of an event happening from space in terms of collision processes, and seeing this relation in terms of Cerenkov radiation, one gets a valuable sense of the process not only at the time of collision, but of what is disseminated, after the event itself happens.

Now while one may of focused on Cerenkov radiation, the effect of this process can be taken down not only to mean "cloud formation," but also, the environment suitable for new manifestations that are "conducive too" bug infestation.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Blackhole evaporation: What's New From the Subatomic-Sized Holes ?

...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
See What is Cerenkov Radiation?

We are being "politically correct" (a sociological observation) when we change the wording of the "microstate blackhole production" to "Sub Atomic Sized Holes?" To maybe "inferr" the desired differences of cosmological blackholes, versus, what we see quickly evaporating in subatomic-sized to be revealed in a footprint?

David Kestenbaum, NPR-Alvaro De Rujula is a physicist at CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory. Three hundred feet below his desk, workers are building a massive particle accelerator that will be capable of reproducing energies present just after the big bang.

Let's pretend that the reporting was not so good back in 1999, and the information we had then was to cause some needless concerns? Good reporting already existed in term of what the Dark Matter was doing. Now it's okay if someone else saids it, and reveals all the dark matter info with Wikipedia. How nice:)Your credible?

Was there any evidence to think a method was already determined "back then" and has become part of the process of discovery?

Bad reporting?

At first bad reporting? Producing fear into the public mind?

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." August 1999

Peter Steinberg, when at Quantum diaries, lead us through this.

The creepy part of these kind of discussions is that one doesn't say that RHIC collisions "create" black holes, but that nucleus-nucleus collisions, and even proton-proton collisions, are in some sense black holes, albeit black holes in some sort of "dual" space which makes the theory easier.


Alvaro was the one who put "James Blodgett of Risk assessment" at ease in regards to strangelets. Now, could strangelets have been considered a consequence of the evaporation? Does this not look similar?

deconstruction: event display
Usually all physicists see are the remnants of a new particle decaying into other types of particles. From that, they infer the existence of the new species and can determine some of its characteristics.
SeeNeutrino Mixing Explained in 60 seconds

Now everything is safe and cozy with these subatomic-sized holes which would simply evaporate. :) How would you know "what is new" after the subatomic holes had evaporated? Are sterile neutrinos new?

While these paragraphs have been selective, they show that experimental processes are being used and detective work applied.

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

Any add on experimental processes at Cern with regards to the LHC are reflect in this second paragraph?

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunnelling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

See Gran Sasso

So while one may think I have some "new process" to make the world happy, it is nothing of the sort. It is interpreting the current theoretical models in regards to current experimental research.

For some reason some scientist think that one can be devoid of this reasoning and apply it to any model/person, while the scientist/lay people already know what is required.

This has been reflected time and again through the interactions of scientist with the public. What is one to think when one scientist calls another scientists devoid of such reason, while he works to develop the string theory model. They don't like that do they?:)


So do you think that Clifford of Asymptotia is practising what he did not like in Peter Woit's summation of the state of affairs in string theory? That while criticizing him he was doing the same thing to others? I laughed when I came across the censoring post on Not even Wrong, and why I had to write my new article on Censoring.

I have never seen such "happy trigger fingers" as to deletion of posts that would contradict the statements Clifford could make about another person, or what Peter Woit could say about "Clifford censoring" statements. Peter provides a forum for those who feel shafted who could voice there displeasure?:)

Don't worry Peter I certainly won't be crying on your blog. Deletion knows it boundaries in terms of censoring there too.:) But anyway, onto the important stuff.

This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks. See Strangelets and Strange Matter

Tunnelling in the string theory landscape

Now it may not seem so odd that I would place a string theory landscape picture up for revue, and have one think about hill climbers and valley crossers. Would it be wrong not to include the "potential hills" and the thought of the "blackhole horizon?" It was "theoretical appealing" as a thought experiment to me, to think about what could traverse those potential hills. We had to use "a mechanism" to help us understand how the cross over point was being established and "new universes" begin to unfold? New particle creation from such collision processes had to be established first. Both at Cern and with "high energy particles from space." IceCube was to be the backdrop for the footprint, and resulting Cerenkov radiation from that collision process?

One needed to see such experiment as taking place currently to help us see the jest of where science is currently taking us on our journey's. So you had to be able to see this process in action back to the insecurities of our ignorance, in relation too, sub-atomic sized holes...ahem...dualites?

So you had to know that the collision process would detail some "crossover point" for consideration? What this means that "after the collision process" you are given a new particle with which to work.

You need to be able to capture this "new particle" and the mediums with which this is done, are the barriers that supply the back drop for foot prin,t to what can be traversed in faster then light potentials. Again Gran Sasso, and let's not forget ICECUBE.

Cross over point

Is it not important to see the experimental process as a natural one?

Bringing the Heavens down to Earth

If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007. See here


So here we are talking about the "before" and "after" and we had not spoken about the point of exchange here? If I were to tell you that such a reductionistic process had taken us to the limits what the heck could this mean? That we had indeed found the transference point of energy to matter, matter to energy and we say it may be the perfect fluids that supplies us this "anomalistic behaviour" with which we will introduce the GR? Talk about Navier-stokes in relation to the perfect fluid and what and how something can traverse through and come out on the other side?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Strangelets and Strange Matter

Of course I will point to some of the "inherent nature" that some scientists encounter as they develop the geometrical basis to "all the concepts could ever mean?" But first, "the journey."

If not fundamental, though, quark nuggets zipping around the galaxy would still be an amazing addition. And perhaps even more amazing, in the end, than any technically strange - or just generally bizarre - particles burrowing through the ground would be the fact that the planet is no longer just a block of dumb rock in their path. It is an ever better wired planet, monitored and thought about in ever more ingenious ways; it is a datasphere ever more sensitive to its surroundings and its own processes, from flashes in the upper atmosphere to rumblings in the core. We have made it a planet that notices things. We have made it an observant Earth.


You have to understand that if you are doing the research you want to know what "this avenue/hypothesis is to produce? It's almost as if "you understand" that the geometry exists under the "fundamental explanations of all concepts" as they are being developed. How a "different language" will be "put over top" of what is existing now schematically. We learn "to read" what has transpired from one who has more credentials then I, as I am only a student of the work.

At the same time how did such thought processes develop outward to experimental validation in the real world? So you must understand, that I too understand this process. Not only from a "conceptual understanding" but from it's associative analysis one as well. It allow me to develop intuitively into what work is now transpiring at Cern.

Strangelets are small fragments of strange matter. They only exist if the "strange matter hypothesis" is correct, in which case they are the true ground state of matter, and nuclei are actually metastable states with a very long lifetime.


Odd behavior?



A person most intense and preoccupied with the endeavours they work, will notice that time passes very quickly around them. It's as if the world bypassed them, as the focus had cost them the appearance or the attention needed to take care of themselves. "Should I care" as I think of them, whether their hair long or that their desk is pile high with paper?

Careful least you disrupt the train of thought, that while busy, the underlings stand ready to act according to the plans of the teacher.

I learnt over time to accept that even the academics will make allowances for the "uniqueness of individuals" even if that behaviour seems odd( sure call it detective work :0). To allow these attributes of the mind to go along with, the excellent and Nobel prize work that may be produced. Do you not think that Einstein in his last days was more concerned with the focus of his attentions then how dishevelled his hair was?

Pierre Auger on Cosmic Rays

"For in 1938, I showed the presence in primary cosmic rays of particles of a million Gigavolts -- a million times more energetic than accelerators of that day could produce. Even now, when accelerators have far surpassed the Gigavolt mark, they still have not attained the energy of 1020eV, the highest observed energy for cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays have not been dethroned as far as energy goes, and the study of cosmic rays has a bright future, if only to learn where these particles come from and how they are accelerated. You know that Fermi made a very interesting proposal that particles are progressively accelerated by bouncing off moving magnetic fields, gaining a little energy each time. In this way, given a certain number of "kicks," one could perhaps account for particles of 1018 -- 1020 electron volts. As yet, however, we have no good theory to explain the production of the very-high-energy particles that make the air showers that my students and I discovered in 1938 at Jean Perrin's laboratory on a ridge of the Jungfrau."

-- Pierre Auger, Journal de Physique, 43, 12, 1982


With introduction to the "Pierre Auger experiments" one learns to appreciate what the large Microscope can do. It allowed us to change the way in which we see cosmology working to include the "astrophysics approach to the description of the universe."

Do you think cosmology devoid of new theoretical approaches, as we venture into the even more abstract "D Brane" world? That we should exclude, such theoretics as a language over top of the process of physics, to not think it is not delving into the world of the geometries involved as well as that physics?

The microscopic process is much more diverse not only in terms of the language, but of how concepts can "cross over" into what we are doing with other approaches.

Beam Trajectories



This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks.


Now of course I opened the beginning of this blog post with a article that asks you to consider the domain in which they have considered earth and it's value as a experimental process. The "strange hypothesis" to which I am talking about as a "cross over analogies" to the developmental process of Cern.

The Pythagoreans were called mathematikoi, which means "those that study all"


Amazing isn't it? That if one understood that there was a original context for all that we create, then what shall this context be? So science asks, that the universal language display the mathematics as a basis of all "conceptual frameworks spoken" that are developed. This is, "the right way of it" as I have watched the scientists as they have developed their theories.

So we have this "microscopic view of reality" as the "power of ten" along with "this enlightenment" that taken over all our senses. What has happened now, as we venture out into the cosmos? What has happened when we've taken "theoretical positions" and adapted them to the processes of physics?

Friday, November 24, 2006

Status of "Warp Drive"

Time is of your own making;
its clock ticks in your head.
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead.
Angelus Silesius


The plot created here in this post in this fictional sense(?) so that I too may deal with the issues of time travel?

Of course time travel is on my mind for reason that some may not suspect, yet it is with "past history" that we are "embedded with knowledge" from our past attempts. From these, if knowledge is acquired for each soul, then how is it that it sat for for the day to be awaken properly? Where did we begin?


Two main difficulties arise from Plato's view of Transmigration. First, Plato says that we have knowledge of universals because of the experiences of our souls in past lives. However, whence comes the knowledge of the first soul? In purely Platonic theory, it must have had no knowledge at all, and hence Plato's concept of transmigration as the basis for innate knowledge fails. A second difficulty lies in explaining the varying, and especially the apparently increasing number of incarnated souls over history.


So this knowledge is somewhere? Is it as if we move our focus on the Tonal, and we see differently, or, that by profound shifts in our perspective on model apprehension, that we see anew?


Sir Isaac Newton



If we had been changed then, had it been from the Tabula Rusa being blank?

It is as if, "the cosmologist has been detained," bewteen the beginning and end of this universe, yet, shall not ask, "what is it" and, "how did it begin?" That it's very existance it came from nothing, thus, shall never end? How illogical is this?

Plato:One of the things that appeared so strange to me was in how we could look at gravitational variances with scientific means. As we know now, this is being accomplished in ways that test the minds imagination, as to how we would apply these features here to earth, and beyond. Timespeak

How "warped the mind then," to create such a controversy. Use this to exemplify a point about creativity? Have I some how degraded "the wording" to show that "what is possssible" is indeed the imaginary mind that likes to play tricks, whilst it developes this whole new train of thought? Simultaneity?


Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)


Sir William Shakespeare



Sir Francis Bacon, disguised by "Shakespearean thought," was just an actor of "creativity," portraying a role of a political man? Yet, the thoughts extended, as if this man was in another place and time? Is it that easy? This story true?

Plato:Creativity? Ways in which we allow "information" to travel through? Play the game? Allow "ingenuity" as the "poetic river that flows" to the surface on you, from everything, or, the blank slate?

Is it useless knowledge then or that science requires this blank slate to allow us to deliver on the basis of science? Each starting position, that we write clearly and hence know that from that time forward, what is being built upon?

Time travel

Plato:Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?Tunneling in Faster then Light


Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.


So previous(Tunneling in Faster than Light) to this post, I tried to show where my thinking was currently held in regards to anti-particle/particle, as examples of what is happening in LHC.

Also, I cleared the air of what was held in mind in terms of the Cerenkov radiation transported ahead of, in faster then light medium capabilities as the blue light. This does not remove my speculations in terms of what is happening in probing the "perfect fluid" and the dissipative effect of microstate blackhole creation. What happens in that moment of high energy collision processes.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Tunnelling in Faster then Light

Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

Omega=the actual density to the critical density

If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?


Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?



A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.


So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.


Getty Images
Although a 1916 paper by Ludwig Flamm from the University of Vienna [4] is sometimes cited as giving the first hint of a wormhole, "you definitely need hindsight to detect it," says Matt Visser of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Einstein and Rosen were the first to take the idea seriously and to try to accomplish some physics with it, he adds. The original goal may have faded, but the Einstein-Rosen bridge still pops up occasionally as a handy solution to the pesky problem of intergalactic travel.


There are two cases in which the thoughts about faster then light particles are created and this is the part where one tries to get it right so as not to confuse themselves and others.

Wormholes?

Plato:
So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?


Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

Tunneling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunneling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."


Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?



This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

Plato:
A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature


Plasmas and Bose condensates

So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).


So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

What are the main goals of the LHC?-
The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.

It was once thought that antimatter was a perfect 'reflection' of matter - that if you replaced matter with antimatter and looked at the result in a mirror, you would not be able to tell the difference. We now know that the reflection is imperfect, and this could have led to the matter-antimatter imbalance in our Universe.

The strongest limits on the amount of antimatter in our Universe come from the analysis of the diffuse cosmic gamma-rays arriving on Earth and the density fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. If one asumes that after the Big Bang, the Universe separated somehow into different domains where either matter or antimatter was dominant, then at the boundaries there should be annihilations, producing cosmic gamma rays. In both cases the limit proposed by current theories is practically equivalent to saying that there is no antimatter in our Universe.


So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."


So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Bacon is Shakespeare?

A modern day puzzle, becomes, blogger world signatures? Taken to a, "Whole....nother....Level.



Creativity? Ways in which we allow "information" to travel through? Play the game? Allow "ingenuity" as the "poetic river that flows" to the surface on you, from everything, or, the blank slate?

What kind of person are you who reveals them self in the words chosen, or the picture highlighted? Humor, as a deeper response for those who look beyond the confines of words, and laugh? We just intuitively get it?

What use that language?

Tragedies, where allowed "the other to speak," and let loose all the mournings of words lost, are covered by our heart's responses? "Released." The soul without it's burdens, carries on. Not really.

Describes the "fictional" in face of the real, while "highlighting the injustices" performing characters, as individual/politicians saved? Another place, and time?


Francis Bacon, De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum, 1623.


The knowledge of Cyphering, hath drawne on with it a knowledge relative unto it, which is the knowledge of Discyphering, or of Discreting Cyphers, though a man were utterly ignorant of the Alphabet of the Cypher, and the Capitulations of secrecy past between the Parties. Certainly it is an Art which requires great paines and a good witt and is (as the other was) consecrate to the Counsels of Princes: yet notwithstanding by diligent prevision it may be made unprofitable, though, as things are, it be of great use. For if good and faithfull Cyphers were invented & practised, many of them would delude and forestall all the Cunning of the Decypherer, which yet are very apt and easie to be read or written: but the rawnesse and unskilfulnesse of Secretaries, and Clarks in the Courts of Princes, is such, that many times the greatest matters are Committed to futile and weake Cyphers.
But it may be, that in the enumeration, and, as it were, taxation of Arts, some may thinke that we goe about to make a great Muster-rowle of Sciences, that the multiplication of them may be more admired; when their number perchance may be displayed, but their forces in so short a Treatise can hardly be tried. But for our parts wee doe faithfully pursue our purpose, and in making this Globe of Sciences, we would not omitt the lesser and remoter Ilands. Neither have we (in our opinion) touched these Arts perfunctorily, though cursorily; but with a piercing stile extracted the marrow and pith of them out of a masse of matter. The judgement hereof we referre to those who are most able to judge of these Arts. For seeing it is the fashion of many who would be thought to know much, that every where making ostentation of words and outward termes of Arts, they become a wonder to the ignorant, but a derision to those that are Masters of those Arts: we hope that our Labours shall have a contrarie successe, which is, that they may arrest the judgment of every one who is best vers'd in every particular Art; and be undervalued by the rest . As for those Arts which may seeme to bee of inferior ranke and order, if any man thinke wee attribute too much unto them; Let him looke about him and hee shall see that there bee many of speciall note and great account in their owne Countrie, who when they come to the chiefe City or feat of the Estate, are but of mean ranke and scarcely regarded: so it is no marvaile if these sleighter Arts, placed by the Principall and supreme Sciences, seeme pettie things; yet to those that have chosen to spend their labours and studies in them, they seeme great and excellent matters. And thus much of the Organ of Speech. -- Francis Bacon, The Advancement and Proficience of Learning, p 257-71, Book VI, 1640.


Sciences current work in Cryptography? A Vast difference then what is reveal in the Shakespearean language? Maybe, it is here, where I see the questions of Susskind's thought experiment about the elephant in two places?

We've learnt in the natural sciences that the key to understanding can often be found if we lift certain dividing lines in our minds. Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground according to the same laws that govern the Moon's orbit of the Earth. And with this he made the old differentiation between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete. Darwin showed that there is no dividing line between man and animal. And Einstein lifted the line dividing space and time. But in our heads, we still draw a dividing line between "reality" and "knowledge about reality", in other words between reality and information. And you cannot draw this line. There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing between reality and information. All this thinking and talking about reality is about information, which is why one should not make a distinction in the formulation of laws of nature. Quantum theory, correctly interpreted, is information theory.


So we find the methods to determine the beginning(Tabula Rusa) and what had always existed in a ideological discourse about which was before "form?"

Innatism is a philosophical doctrine introduced by Plato in the socratic dialogue Meno which holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a tabula rasa at birth. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. Innatism is the opposite of empiricism.

Plato claimed that humans are born with ideas/forms in the mind that are in a dormant state. He claimed that we have acquired these ideas prior to our birth when we existed as souls in the world of Forms. To access these, humans need to be reminded of them through proper education and experience.


So shall one then debate about what existed in the beginning of this universe, if we are presented with the thought that we are already born with knowledge and ideas? That we should start from such a blank slate? So then for you, nothing existed before? Or has something philosophically and profoundly, always existed?

This means you can never discard what you set in motion, only that what you started has consequences, and moves into the next life? So we try and do it right in this one. We accept the burden/choice for growth, and learn.

But this is a personal choice. We do not in face of "what lies in the dormant state" disregard empiricism. You see Plato and Aristotle together, don't you?

So we come to what is of value after we have learn about Cerenkov radiation and what did not exist before, now exists? Time travel? How is this possible in the scenario of LHC? Have we accepted faster then light entities in our assessment of what goes beyond the speed of light? Then I have to show how this is so?

Result of Effective Changes in the Cosmos

"There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap. The important thing is not to stop questioning." Albert Einstein (1879- 1955)




But the presence of an event horizon implies a finite Hawking temperature and the conditions for defining the S Matrix cannot be fulfilled. This lack of an S Matrix is a formal mathematical problem not only in string theory but also in particle theories.

One recent attempt to address this problem invokes quantum geometry and a varying speed of light. This remains, as they say, an active area of research. But most experts doubt that anything so radical is required.


What processes would allow you to see "faster then light entities" being shown as examples of that "cross over point?" That's part of the fun isn't it when you realize what some experiments are actually checking for? :)



So yes of course, you might think about "Cerenkov radiation" and from this, what is happening in today's world, that allows us lay people, never having seen or understood, but may now do so?

SNO
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is a collaborative effort among physicists from Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. Using 1,000 tons of so-called heavy water and almost 10,000 photon detectors, they measure the flux, energy, and direction of solar neutrinos, which originate in the sun. SNO, located 6,800 feet underground in an active Ontario nickel mine, can also detect the other two types of neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. In 2001, just two years after the observatory opened, physicists at SNO solved the 30-year-old mystery of the "missing solar neutrinos." They found that the answer lies not with the sun—where many physicists had suspected that solar neutrinos undergo changes—but with the journey they take from the core of the sun to the Earth.


In the previous article I mention the "cross over point in LHC" and from this, the idea was born in mind, how the universe and the effectives rates of expansion could take place?



While it is a long shot, I thought since of layman status, what could it hurt but to speculate and see what thoughts further arise from this. Like any model perspective adopted, allows new thinking to emerge, where previously, none existed for me. So one tends to try and go with the flow and see where it ends up. At least that's what I do and now, others do too?


Blackhole Production in the Cosmos


Increase, in high energy collisions taking place, allows speed up of inflation?



So here is the jest of what allowed me to say that the effective rates of exchange in the cosmos had to have the physics related to show the reasons why the effective speed up of inflation has been detected.


Adapted from Dienes et al., Nuclear Physics B
Some theorists envision the universe as multidimensional space-time embedding a membranous entity, called a brane, also of multiple dimensions. Diagram depicts familiar 3-dimensional space (time not shown) as a vertical line. At every point along line, one extra dimension curls around with a radius (r) of no more that about 10–19 meter. Perpendicular to every point of the brane extends the bulk, another extra dimension.


Also I will give the idea of "photo/graviton association" and how "graviton in a can" allows perspective about the "effective field variations" that "may be" predicted in the vacuum as it produces new physics to emerge on the other side? Quite a mouthful I know.


The graviton is the quantum force carrier of gravity. In conventional quantum field theory, graviton processes with loops do not make sense because of incurable divergencies.


The idea then here is to understand the graviton production in particle collisions here produce some interesting "phenomena" as we see faster then light entities move beyond the confines of that "graviton in a can." So you get the jest then, that even if the boundary conditions are experimentally being tested here, the production of gravitons is very high.

So what allows faster then light entities to move beyond these confines if you did not understand the connection to the "perfect fluid" and the anomalistic nature this perfect fluid has for allowing such traversing beyond the standard model?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.