Pages

Showing posts with label Condense Matter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Condense Matter. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

ATLAS discovers its first new particle

String theory isn't just another quantum field theory, another particular finite list of elementary particles with some interactions. It's an intellectually and literally multi-dimensional reservoir of wisdom that has taught us many things of completely new kinds that we couldn't foresee. The Reference Frame: LHC: is a new particle?: LHC: is χb(3P) a new particle?

When you hold a particular point of view about nature it is important in my mind to know where the search is going and what this means overall. How we look at reality and how we look at nature.


The spectrum of the b states: the leftmost peak is the b(1P), the middle one the b(2P), and the rightmost the new b(3P). The upper plot shows the spectrum for decays involving unconverted photons, while th lower plot shows the spectra for decays involving converted photons. In the lower plot, the upper (red) curve shows the spectrum for b decays to (1S), while the lower (brown) curve shows the spectrum for decays to (2S). (Only the b(3P) peak appears distinctly in the lower spectrum because it is the only b state with decays involving enough energy to be detected in this study.) See: Atlas News

Also See: LHC heads into new year with first particle discovery

I understand how my own life can be changed from experiencing an anomaly in the everyday world? It is not proof enough. All scientists know this.

Is it better then for those who visit to know that such a thing in a condense matter view can can govern the matter states? This is part of recognizing the geometrical structure that Plato sought to establish as an underlying reality to nature? While it does not all define the matter states so successful we could attribute the universe to a soccer ball? No. For those of you who need more proof seek to find the subject of allotrope or polytopes here and you will understand what I mean.
 
How it can have such an impact, and to search, where our sciences have gone. I hope one day it offers up an answer. I suspect that the research in science experimentally will most likely lead the way.  I believe we will discover something quite dramatic in the coming years that seems now very unlikely.

The lure to write my experience as a truth and to offer it up as a question, is on my mind. I believe we are much closely attached to the depth of reality then we currently know. I can only write it up as fiction then.

This is part of the idea I have about the move into the cosmos as part of our education as civilians of a new cultural thematic that we will make our home out in the stars as a result of this.

Clearly I speak of the elemental nature and gravity, and this too is a pursuit in today's science that is underway. So while I speak in advance of such things, clearly it must be highlighted that this has not been accomplished yet either.

Of course there are theories out there and using them provide for a better perspective about our cosmos and the birth of it. In theory then, there is much that makes sense. In theory, it has to be experimentally proven. In theory, we construct the parameters?

If you have a particle that travels a distance and you use a calorimeter instrument to measure it's identity, then can you not seek to find a representative of calorimeter design that would suit the "time differences of something that would amount to a faster then light"....other then recognize existing mediums as a sure sign of Cerenkov?

You use the space station then? If you follow the history of high energy particles from space this left you with no alternative but to leave the domain of earth to establish some insight into the applicability of the AMS program and particle research? Dark matter research?

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Superconductivity Dance Flash Mob

What can I say people in science seem to like to dance a lot to explain things?:)



Ranging from slime molds to Alzheimer’s Disease, a new online exhibit, Emergent Universe (http://www.emergentuniverse.org) aims to encourage young people to learn about “emergence,” complex behaviors that arise from the interaction of simple parts. See: Emergent Universe - an online museum of science.
***



Created for the online science museum emergentuniverse.org, this dance flash mob illustrates the behavior of electrons in a superconductor. Superconductors are materials which, at very low temperatures, can conduct electric currents without any resistance. That means that the current can flow forever with no energy loss.

The exhibit on superconductivity at emergentuniverse.org will go live this summer, 2011, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the phenomenon of superconductivity. Emergentuniverse.org is sponsored by the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter (icam-i2cam.org).
 ***

At  emergentuniverse.org "Unlocking the Universe" together with "Hear the Music," it was appealing to me back then as it is now. 

***

The weird quantum nature of the atomic world challenges us to revise the way we view the world around us. We learn that our everyday world - built out of the myriad superposition of matter waves, has an unexpected capacity for new kinds of behavior and "self organization" that we are only just beginning to fathom. Music of the Quantum World

 ***

See Also
Update:

    Tuesday, November 15, 2011

    Point Particles and String Amplitudes



    For myself understanding the dimensional relationship toward the QFT perspective of particle research and development,  it has been a difficult road to understanding this relation. It is not just the idea of what transpires as we architecturally build the world\universe we live in,  but to understand nature's expression as we see the movement in the universe as we research and experimental with particle  decay products.


    Click on Image to go to appropriate site for image dedication

    So there is a lot being said about what is contained in the first paragraph of this opening blog post that will never be understood by other layman like myself, or, other experts considering the developmental phases I have been going through. Are my  ruminations consistent,  or,  have they haphazardly layered a trail of confusion  to have it said that what danger lurks in this determination of what is written here is to confuse.

    Should I put aside all that I have learn in context of theoretical developments?


    Albrecht Dürer(self portrait at 28) See also: Albrecht Durer and His Magic Square


    No.  I can assure you that I have been at this a number of years now to say that with what I am doing now is filling  in the gaps of where I have been to where I am going in terms of better explaining myself in a scientific context that is acceptable to the notion of what might have transpired in the 21 st century for some. It has been in learning string theory.  Yes, I have listened to all the articulations of the back and forth of what the basis of this theoretical determination is "as a mathematical foundation"  has yet to prove it''s validity as a method by which to explain the nature of the universe?

     
    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. 


    How am I to dismiss the logic of approach? We are learning to count in dimensional referencing? It is mathematically orientated is it not? But indeed,  Planck scale presents a problem.  So by what foundation can  it ever play as a method by which such discussion of the universe in expression? How can it have such validation as a geometrical expression of the nature of particle expression by virtue of the dimensional development along side of topological arrangement and correlations?


    The crystalline state is the simplest known example of a quantum , a stable state of matter whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else. Prof. Robert B. Laughlin
     
    This is just the road I took and it allowed me to see what can ever transpired as a expression of a understanding of symmetry breaking. It is an understanding of this correlation toward the "false vacuum to the true."  This was an expression of the space we are "living in" as an understanding of the timing in relation to the expression of this universe. One just had to know indeed their was indeed a higher order? A Klein bottle perhaps in  following the lines on the surface?

     Using the anti–de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence to relate fermionic quantum critical fields to a gravitational problem, we computed the spectral functions of fermions in the field theory. By increasing the fermion density away from the relativistic quantum critical point, a state emerges with all the features of the Fermi liquid. See:String Theory, Quantum Phase Transitions, and the Emergent Fermi Liquid
    What can we say then is emergent? So you are learning to count in geometrical expressions as a placement of the Genus figures? So what correlations can be drawn toward the beginning of such counting?

    For me it was necessary to carry on the tradition of geometrical seeing what was revealed in relativity development(Grossman and Riemann) to know that such an expression had to be moved into the world of the very small.

    The Landscape Again and again....


    It had to have a relativistic interpretation of the way in which such energies could detail the understanding of particles in expression. But also, of the energies involved. So this "Royal road to geometry" in relation to topology,  had to be understood by myself as I understood the Genus placements in the valleys of expression. The landscape.

    I knew where such new physics needs to be in relation to what is happening as we look at the experiments of LHC . Of course I have to better understand the Jet manifestation in order to reveal some of the thinking that has been produced in my journeys.

    Friday, March 23, 2007

    Solidification of Geometrical Presence

    While I might infer the "attributes of Coxeter here," it is with the understanding such a dimensional perspective which has it's counterpart in the result of what manifests as matter creations. Yet we have taken our views down to the "powers of ten" to think of what could manifest even before we see the result in nature.

    When you go to the site by PBS of where, Nano: Art Meets Science, make sure you click on the lesson plan to the right.



    Buckyballs

    Visitors' shadows manipulate and reshape projected images of "Buckyballs." "Buckyball," or a buckminsterfullerene molecule, is a closed cage-structure molecule with a carbon network. "Buckyball" was named for R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (1895-1983), a scientist, philosopher and inventor, best known for creating the geodesic dome.
    Photo Credit: © 2003 Museum Associates/Los Angeles County Museum
    Fundamentally the properties of materials can be changed by nanotechnology. We can arrange molecules in a way that they do not normally occur in nature. The material strength, electronic and optical properties of materials can all be altered using nanotechnology.


    See Related information on bucky balls here in this site. This should give some understanding of how I see the greater depth of what manifest in nature, as solids in our world, has some "other" possibilities in dimensional attribute, while it is given association to the mathematical prowess of E8.

    I do not know of many who will take in all that I have accumulated in regards to how one may look at their planet, can have the depth of perception that is held in to E8.?

    One may say what becomes of the world as it manifest into it's constituent parts, has this energy relation, that it would become all that is in the design of the world around us.



    While some scientists puzzle as to the nature of the process of E8, little did they realize that if you move your perception to the way E8 is mapped to 248 dimensions, the image while indeed quite pleasing, you see as a result.

    It can include so much information, how would you know that this object of mathematics, is a polytrope of a kind that is given to the picture of science in the geometrical structure of the bucky ball or fullerene.

    Allotropes



    Diamond and graphite are two allotropes of carbon: pure forms of the same element that differ in structure.
    Allotropy (Gr. allos, other, and tropos, manner) is a behaviour exhibited by certain chemical elements: these elements can exist in two or more different forms, known as allotropes of that element. In each different allotrope, the element's atoms are bonded together in a different manner.

    For example, the element carbon has two common allotropes: diamond, where the carbon atoms are bonded together in a tetrahedral lattice arrangement, and graphite, where the carbon atoms are bonded together in sheets of a hexagonal lattice.




    Note that allotropy refers only to different forms of an element within the same phase or state of matter (i.e. different solid, liquid or gas forms) - the changes of state between solid, liquid and gas in themselves are not considered allotropy. For some elements, allotropes can persist in different phases - for example, the two allotropes of oxygen (dioxygen and ozone), can both exist in the solid, liquid and gaseous states. Conversely, some elements do not maintain distinct allotropes in different phases: for example phosphorus has numerous solid allotropes, which all revert to the same P4 form when melted to the liquid state.

    The term "allotrope" was coined by the famous chemist Jöns Jakob Berzelius.

    Thursday, December 14, 2006

    Against Symmetry

    The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid's Elements for example). It quickly acquired a further, more general, meaning: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole. From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.





    The basic difference that I see is the way in which Lee Smolin adopts his views of what science is in relation too, "Two traditions in the search for fundamental Physics."

    It is strange indeed to see perfection of Lee Smolin's comparison and having a look further down we understand the opening basis of his philosophical thoughts in regards to the title "against symmetry?"

    Some reviews on the "Trouble With Physics," by Lee Smolin

  • Seed Magazine, August 2006
  • Time magazine August 21, 2006
  • Discover Magazine, September 2006 &
  • Scientific American, September 2006
  • Wired September 2006:15 :
  • The Economist, Sept 14, 2006
  • The New York Times Book review, Sep 17, 2006 by Tom Siegfried
  • The Boston Globe, Sept 17, 2006
  • USA Today, Sept 19, 2006
  • The New York Sun, by Michael Shermer, Sept 27, 2006
  • The New Yorker,  by Jim Holt Sept 25,2006
  • The LA Times, by K C Cole, Oct 8, 2006
  • Nature,
  • by George Ellis (Nature 44, 482, 5 Oct. 2006)
  • San Fransisco Chronicle , by Keay Davidson, Oct 13, 2006
  • Dallas Morning News, by FRED BORTZ, Oct 15, 2006
  • Toronto Star, by PETER CALAMAI, Oct 15, 2006


  • But before I begin in that direction I wanted people to understand something that is held in the mind of the "condense matter theorist." In terms of the building blocks of nature. This is important basis of understanding, that any building block could emergent from anything, we had to identify where this symmetry existed, before it manifested in the "matter states of reality."

    Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.


    So it is important to understand what is emergent and what exists in the "theory of everything" if it did not consider the context of symmetry? AS a layman trying to get underneath the thinking process of any book development, it is important to me.

    Symmetry considerations dominate modern fundamental physics, both in quantum theory and in relativity. Philosophers are now beginning to devote increasing attention to such issues as the significance of gauge symmetry, quantum particle identity in the light of permutation symmetry, how to make sense of parity violation, the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.


    The idea here then is to find super strings place within context of the evolving universe, in terms of, "the microseconds" and not the "first three minutes" of Steven Weinberg.

    So it is important to see the context with which this discussion is taking place, in terms of the high energy and from that state of existence to what entropically manifests into the universe now.

    Confronting A Position Adopted By Lee Smolin


    A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

    This is only "one point of contention" that was being addressed at Clifford Johnson's Asymptotia.

    Jacques Distler :

    This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

    What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.


    There is no doubt that the "timeliness of statements" can further define, support or not, problems that are being discussed. I don't mind being deleted on the point of the post above, because our good scientist's are getting into the heat of things. I am glad Arun stepped up to the plate.

    Part of finally coming to some head on debate, was seeing how Peter Woit along with Lee Smolin were being challlenged for their views, while there had been this ground swell created against a model that was developed, like Loop quantum gravity was developed. One of the two traditions in search for the fundamental physics. Loop qunatum Gravity and String theory(must make sure there is the modification to M theory?) Shall this be included?


    Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

    But as they are having this conversation, it is this openness that they have given of themselves that we learn of the intricacies of the basis of arguments, so the public is better informed as to what follows and what has to take place.


    Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

    So while this issue is much more complex then just the exchange there, I have not forgotten what it is all about. Or why one may move from a certain position after they have summarize the views they had accumulated with regards to the subject of String/M theory as a model that has out lived it's usefulness, in terms of not providing a experimental frame work around it.

    Saturday, October 14, 2006

    "Lead by Physics," Faces the "Trouble With Physics"


    The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory is a world-class scientific research facility that began operation in 2000, following 10 years of development and construction. Hundreds of physicists from around the world use RHIC to study what the universe may have looked like in the first few moments after its creation. RHIC drives two intersecting beams of gold ions head-on, in a subatomic collision. What physicists learn from these collisions may help us understand more about why the physical world works the way it does, from the smallest subatomic particles, to the largest stars



    Well I have to deal with first things first here. This article above correlates the one given by Stefan. This is not to contest what you are saying, just to show you the informtaion I myself had gone through to arrive at the conclusions I do.

    Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question Risk
    By Carolyn Weaver

    Seen from above, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, or RHIC, at New York’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, looks like a racetrack. And it is a kind of race track: two “beam pipes” in a tunnel nearly four kilometers around, in which gold nuclei are accelerated to close to the speed of light, and are crashed into each other at intersecting points along the way. Out of the kinetic energy of those collisions, new matter is created for a brief instant: a shower of quarks and gluons, the smallest particles known – and at seven trillion degrees, hotter than anything now in the universe.



    Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg
    “It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

    The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.


    You say strangelets do not exist? And that no connection has been found between string theory, and strangelets. I have to then argue my case so you see it in light of what the reductionistic physics is actually doing, while string theory and it's energy values hover overhead of all these interactions. How th epaticle inclination must also include microstate blackhole creation.

    So bear with me if you can.


    Hi Plato,

    strange matter and strangelets are a very interesting topic, but, unfortunately, there has been no experimental evidence for them so far. They are not really connected to string theory either, besides the fact that it was an early paper of Witten that resuscitated interest in them with nuclear physicists, I think.

    Strangelets have been thought of as possible culprits for RHIC disaster scenarios (besides the ubiquitous black holes ;-), and as responsible for potential cosmic ray particles beyond the GZK cutoff.

    But as far as I know, there has been no experimental verification of any of these ideas (and the world still exists: RHIC has produced no greedy strangelets which would have eaten up the Earth).

    In the case of the potential quark star you cite, RX J185635-375, again, and unfortunately, as far as I remember, it came out that the radius determination was not completely safe. Bottomline was that this star could be well understood as a common neutron star. I am not completely sure, though, about the current status of this object, whether it is thought to be a quark star or not.

    Anyway, it is a good example for an exciting observation which is reported in the press, but which has to be partially revisd later - only that these revisions don't make in the press releases. I guess it would often be quite interesting to have a kind of follow-up reporting, where one could read what is, eventually, the fate of some discovery that has been announced in the press.

    The strange particles I was talking about are not strangelets, but the common hadrons with strangeness, especially the Ξs and the Ωs, with two and three strange quarks, respectively. These are the particles that I had mentioned in my earlier post, and whereof I should finish the second part, finally ;-). You typically find much more of these particles in nucleus-nucleus collisions than in (properly scaled) nucleon-nucleus collisions, which is a strong indication for an intermediate QGP state, where stange-antistrang quark pairs can easily be produced.

    Best, stefan



    One, as we know can make wide sweeping generalization about the physics and why is it that any position taken by any scientist would not have been one that becomes the point of departure for all scientists? An example her ei the rationship to the Heavy Ion collsions an dstringtheory and by this very nature to the strangelets as postulated.

    This article below is to correlate with the article you showed me of 2004, while I had made this ocnlusion myself early in 2006, lets not forget the number of people involved in the "ghost particle, and Pauli" through out the years and what we have seen theoretically of the strangelets as they had been related to the disaster scenario as consequential microstate blackholes created in the RHIC and LHC.

    Is this too drastic a scenario to have you think about what all these “particles in press” are saying about the science, that any one scientist themselves might be following to correct? You say, "just get it right?" Well there are many within the blogs who are writers for those articles? Why do you think they are amongst you?

    I had noticed the grouping and conversations between blogs that had been developing over the last year and half. I continue to see some of the same people. Some, that constantly referred to the reporting that goes on. So I had to address this or forever be banished to the realm of reporting as someone just profiled.

    Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

    Three models of strangelet production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions have been proposed in the 1980s and 1990s: coalescence [10], thermal statistical production [11], and distillation from a Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) [12, 13]. The first two models usually predict low strangelet production cross sections at mid-rapidity, as verified by measurements of the related processes of coalescence of nucleons into nuclei [14]. If a QGP is created in heavy ion collisions, it could cool down by distillation (kaon emission) and condense to strange-quark-rich matter in its ground state – a strangelet. However, this requires a net baryon excess and a non-explosive process in the collisions [12, 15]. Neither of these conditions is
    favored at mid-rapidity in ultra-high energy heavy ion collisions, as suggested by results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL [16]. Recently a new mechanism for strangelet


    I want you to have a good look at the number of names listed in this Pdf file as well the universities involve.

    Clifford of Asymptotia made this point clear about the vast network of scientists even within the string theory network of people and about who knows whom? Can you possibly know everyone, or, like the paper whose citations are referred to more as we refer to any particular scientist? We then come to see the make up and nature as we hold our views to the particular few.

    So before I begin here I wanted to make it clear, that having spent considerable time as hobby and interest about science. It is not without my own motivations that the interest would be the memory of one’s childhood, or the magazine that we looked at, but the reality we are dealing with and what we call the “nature of things.”

    An anomaly that cannot be explained nor shall it be removed because of the lack of evidence. It’s just one of those things that you cannot change in the person’s make up who has seen the world in a different way then normal. So shall he endeavor to accumulate all the things that are wrong to destabilization the view of truth of the world just so he can corrupt all those around him?

    I ask myself the question about "what is natural" because I seen what scientists were doing to each other about the theoretical/concepts/ideas models that they were adopting in their research, that I wanted to make sure that what I had been researching had been as up to date.

    Would one "leave out information that I had assembled" as they deal with me?

    As I have said before while the students have been engaged in the classroom I had been following the physics development as best I could. Spent years watching and learning

    So here's the thing.

    If I did not answer Stefan at Backreaction about the information about strangelets then it might have been left off where Stefan decided too as he continues to show his elementary particle thinking( finish the second part Stefan).

    Continued reference to strangelets might everyone think the conclusion as written I the way Stefan has shown it? Would information I had been developing have been less than the standard of what scientists hold as standard. How could anyone know it all? Hold the badge over the trial of LHC or RHIC and say I had broken the law with my insolence and corruptible behavior?:) Non! Qui?

    So here again is the conundrum I had placed in front of me as I looked and interacted with the various blogs who have commented on Lee Smolin’s book, “The trouble With Physics.”

    But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

    Lubos Motl:
    Well, I think that even if someone believes that theoretical physics can't be trusted - and many people clearly do - there exists a less scientific argument why the accelerator won't lead to such a catastrophe: the Earth is bombed by a lot of very high-energy cosmic rays and the center-of-mass energy of the collisions is comparable to the LHC energies. So far, these collisions haven't destroyed the Earth, so it is reasonable that some additional collisions we create won't be able to do so either.


    While I had these similar thoughts it was not wothpt some basis the Blogett would have pointe dyou to think about strnagelets and then in my own assumptions, the comic particle collsions from what Ellis had taught us to think about. Yes, it was the natural collider in space for sure, and it's "energy values" well beyond what is availiable at LHC.

    So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

    In strangelets do not exist, I had come to the same conclusion Stefan did about what is "theoretically challenged" might have engaged the thinking mind as to the relationship to what the neutrino may have been in that exercise of the QGP, compared to this one on strangelets.

    So I gathered information to help me see the direction the physics was going. Least it escaped the mantra that I had been hearing exemplified in my dealings as best I can.

    “Lead by the Physics.” Now I face, "the trouble with Physics."

    See:

  • Strangelets Do Not Exist?
  • The Fate of our Planet?
  • Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006
  • Friday, September 29, 2006

    Historical Approach of the Sand Reckoner

    I should pave the way for how the thoughts that are unfolding this morning.

    But nothing afflicted Marcellus so much as the death of Archimedes, who was then, as fate would have it, intent upon working out some problem by a diagram, and having fixed his mind alike and his eyes upon the subject of his speculation, he never noticed the incursion of the Romans, nor that the city was taken. In this transport of study and contemplation, a soldier, unexpectedly coming up to him, commanded him to follow to Marcellus; which he declining to do before he had worked out his problem to a demonstration, the soldier, enraged, drew his sword and ran him through. Others write that a Roman soldier, running upon him with a drawn sword, offered to kill him; and that Archimedes, looking back, earnestly besought him to hold his hand a little while, that he might not leave what he was then at work upon inconclusive and imperfect; but the soldier, nothing moved by his entreaty, instantly killed him. Others again relate that, as Archimedes was carrying to Marcellus mathematical instruments, dials, spheres, and angles, by which the magnitude of the sun might be measured to the sight, some soldiers seeing him, and thinking that he carried gold in a vessel, slew him. Certain it is that his death was very afflicting to Marcellus; and that Marcellus ever after regarded him that killed him as a murderer; and that he sought for his kindred and honored them with signal favors.


    First off, as Plato I understand "the secret" of the Building of the Pyramids. Why and what it means as a model of comprehension about the building blocks of nature.

    So "carefully think in conclusion" about what this post means as you near it's end. For I had much more to say about it philosophically, but that would be stepping ahead to "now." :)

    Anyway

    Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.


    A lot of people do not understand that if you look to the cosmo, you do not just look at what is evident from observation, but that your observation is increased, as you enhance your perceptions about the "real depth" of that universe.

    IN "LHC Factoids," presented by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance, some of the tantilizing ideas about the complexity of the information is being discussed. To me, this presents an opportune time to gain perspective from the "bottom up" discussed by Frank Wilczek .

    If the sand is melted into a lense or a diamond, what view had been established by Frank that you might say his lense "is" distorted? If you read the article you understand the context, but until then, what use any "mountain/pyramid to climb" if you did not understand the complexity of the information?


    Archimedes met an untimely death while deep in thought, pondering a figure he had drawn in the sand. He did not see the Roman soldier approach, sword in hand. The mosaic portrays this historical event


    About Dimension

    John Baez's link this morning in his comment is important for a lot of different angles... ummm... reasons?:)

    So when you are pointed towards the valuation of all these "sand particles," it not that you want to look like an "ostrich and bury your head in the sand," but that you want to retain perspective on the complexity of the "sand castles" that mathematicans like to build? So you tend to look for the technique concerning the point, breadth and width of the evolving statemntement of the projective geoemtries?

    A space is a collection of entities called points. Both terms are undefined but their relation is important: space is superordinate while point is subordinate. Our everyday notion of a point is that it is a position or location in a space that contains all the possible locations. Since everything doesn't happen in exactly the same place, we live in what can rightly be called a space, but points need not be point-like. Any kind of object can be a point. Other geometric objects, for instance, are totally acceptable (lines, planes, circles, ellipses, conic sections) as are algebraic entities (functions, variables, parameters, coefficients) or physical measurements (time, speed, temperature, index of refraction). Even so-called "real" things can be points in a space: people are points in the space of a nation's population, nations are points in the global political space, and telephones are points in the space of a telecommunications network.



    So of course you always start off with Euclidean perspective, and work from there. So, you have "one" grain of sand? One raindrop? One string? Okay, you get my point yet?

    The beginning of the Universe?

    I want people to realize where the strings fit in. I can't help but stress that such advances to "the cause" of what perception is necessary had to start off in a "avenue" like all things, this road leads to the universe we have today.



    Because it starts off in the analogy of "the string" makes this feature no less important then the "sargeant major" of Robert Laughlin's condense matter theorist view.

    See:

  • What are those Quantum Microstates-Tuesday, October 18, 2005

  • A Perspective on Powers of Ten?


  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006

    What's on the Condense Matter Theorist's Mind?

    The Theory of Everything


    Prof. Robert B. Laughlin


    The crystalline state is the simplest known example of a quantum , a stable state of matter whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else. Robert Laughlin


    Thre are certain perspective that are different then what reductionism has done to serves it's purpose? Now such ideas lanquish because they seem unfitting. So you gain perspective by those who think about things differently and see what parameters rule the logic of their ideas.

    In his book The End of Science John Horgan argues that our civilization is now facing barriers to the acquisition of knowledge so fundamental that the Golden Age of Science must must be thought of as over [38]. It is an instructive and humbling experience to attempt explaining this idea to a child. The outcome is always the same. The child eventually stops listening, smiles politely, and then runs off to explore the countless infinities of new things in his or her world. Horgan's book might more properly have been called the End of Reductionism, for it is actually a call to those of us concerned with the health of physical science to face the truth that in most respects the reductionist ideal has reached its limits as a guiding principle. Rather than a Theory of Everything we appear to face a hierarchy of Theories of Things, each emerging from its parent and evolving into its children as the energy scale is lowered. The end of reductionism is, however, not the end of science, or even the end of theoretical physics. How do proteins work their wonders? Why do magnetic insulators superconduct? Why is 3He a superfluid? Why is the electron mass in some metals stupendously large? Why do turbulent fluids display patterns? Why does black hole formation so resemble a quantum phase transition? Why do galaxies emit such enormous jets? The list is endless, and it does not include the most important questions of all, namely those raised by discoveries yet to come. The central task of theoretical physics in our time is no longer to write down the ultimate equations but rather but to catalogue and understand emergent behavior in its many guises, including potentially life itself. We call this physics of the next century the study of complex adaptive matter. For better or worse we are now witnessing a transition from the science of the past, so intimately linked to reductionism, to the study of complex adaptive matter, firmly based in experiment, with its hope for providing a jumping-off point for new discoveries, new concepts, and new wisdom.


    So for me as I look at the state of the world I am asking what patterns were pre-esstablished that would govern the higg's mechanison and looking for such a "organizational attribute" would have settled the question as to why people gathered around the professor as Einstein crossed the room.

    From a reductionsitic standpoint what was the "energy" doing as we used these colliders as mechanisims towards matter/mass comstituents discovery. Did this disavow our views on what was emergent from a point in spacetime?

    So of course I will draw people's attention to what I think has to come into "expression" and how this is done. What is the "basis" of that expression and how we will see it explode into the sociological valuation that constitutes our society of exchanges.

    I referred to John Nash here many times. What is it, he discovered at the heart of "negotiated processes?" What is the schematics of that expression that he identified in human behavior, as showing such schemas? Birds, that had some "higher organization pattern" that governed flock movement?

    So are strings a emergent phenomena? You had to know their place in the scheme of things. Do your recognized the method as to the nergy valuation given? How such branching is effected, based on some "Feynman toy model discription" that revealed what about the early universe?

    Edward Witten:
    One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics


    What about pushing "perspective back" to the microseconds? At what point does the Universe make itself known? Had you already forgotten about the "first three microseconds?"

    Sunday, August 27, 2006

    Numerical Relativity and Math Transference

    Part of the advantage of looking at computer animations is knowing that the basis of this vision that is being created, is based on computerized methods and codes, devised, to help us see what Einstein's equations imply.

    Now that's part of the effort isn't it, when we see the structure of math, may have also embued a Dirac, to see in ways that ony a good imagination may have that is tied to the abstractions of the math, and allows us to enter into "their portal" of the mind.

    NASA scientists have reached a breakthrough in computer modeling that allows them to simulate what gravitational waves from merging black holes look like. The three-dimensional simulations, the largest astrophysical calculations ever performed on a NASA supercomputer, provide the foundation to explore the universe in an entirely new way.

    According to Einstein's math, when two massive black holes merge, all of space jiggles like a bowl of Jell-O as gravitational waves race out from the collision at light speed.

    Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes. The necessary equations, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, were far too complex. But scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have found a method to translate Einstein's math in a way that computers can understand.


    Already having this basis of knowledge availiable, it was important to see what present day research has done for us, as we look at these images and allow them to take us into the deep space as we construct measures to the basis of what GR has done for us in a our assumptions of the events in the cosmo.

    But it is more then this for me, as I asked the question, on the basis of math? I have enough links here to show the diversity of experience created from mathematical structures to have one wonder how indeed is th efinite idealization of imagination as a endless resource? You can think about livers if you likeor look at the fractorialization of the beginning of anythng and wonder I am sure.

    That has been the question of min in regards to a condense matter theorist who tells us about the bulding blocks of matter can be anything. Well, in this case we are using "computer codes" to simulate GR from a mathematical experience.

    So you see now don't you?:)

    Is Math Invented or Discovered?

    The question here was one of some consideration, as I wondered, how anyone could have delved into the nature of things and come out with some mathematcial model? Taken us along with the predecessors of endowwment thinking(imagination). To develope new roads. They didn't have to be 6 0r 7 roads Lubos, just a assumation. Sort of like, taking stock of things.

    So I may ask, "what are the schematics of nature" and the build up starts from some place. Way back, before the computer modeling and such. A means, by which we will give imagination the tools to carry on.

    So the journey began way back and the way in which such models lead our perspectives is the "overlay" of what began here in the postulates and moved on into other worldy abstractions?

    This first postulate says that given any two points such as A and B, there is a line AB which has them as endpoints. This is one of the constructions that may be done with a straightedge (the other being described in the next postulate).

    Although it doesn't explicitly say so, there is a unique line between the two points. Since Euclid uses this postulate as if it includes the uniqueness as part of it, he really ought to have stated the uniqueness explicitly.

    The last three books of the Elements cover solid geometry, and for those, the two points mentioned in the postulate may be any two points in space. Proposition XI.1 claims that if part of a line is contained in a plane, then the whole line is. In the books on plane geometry, it is implicitly assumed that the line AB joining A to B lies in the plane of discussion.


    One would have to know that the history had been followed here to what it is today.

    Where Non-euclidean geometry began, and who were the instigators of imaginitive spaces now that were to become very dynamic in the xyzt direction.

    All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)




    These picture above, belongs to a much larger picture housed in the Raphael rooms in Rome. This particular picture many are familiar with as I use part of it as my profile picture. It is called the "Room of the Segnatura."



    The point is, that if you did not know of the "whole picture" you would have never recognized it's parts?

    Sunday, August 13, 2006

    From the Stillness Born

    Can harmonic oscillators serve as a bridge between quantum mechanics and special relativity?





    "Daddy, is this the World," my young son asks, as we drive through the neighborhood with which we lived. This still sits deep in my conscious mind, as I tried to understand the scope of his vision, about reality. I looked at this small human being, and what he thougt of the world.

    Years pass, and born out the child's mind are things that were once asked of him. That if you wanted to "be" something in life, as to a vocation, what would that be?

    He was on stage, with the "rest of the people" as the hypnotist walked among them all and asked a question. They were all "highly open" to the suggestiveness of the question. Not knowing what my son was doing, as his arm was making this sawing movement, the hypnotist asked. My son replied, "I am a builder."

    He was young to know that he was really going to do? He was young to know that he would one day try this? But, from the results, you might conclude that he is indeed a builder?

    He has completed the roof lines here ,and in the following days the roofers will come and finished the roof. As well, we will be placing the doors and windows.

    Unfortunately I could not help him with the roof, and this seems fitting, that he finish this part of the job as the icing on cake.

    On the ledge



    I am one of those people if standing on the edge, becomes very disorientated. If one might of saw my reaction as I stood on the edge of the vastness with which my wife and I gazed upon the grand canyon, it was "this thing about heights" that makes itself known to me. That the closer I got, the lower, I would place myself to the ground. My comfort zone is to know that there is a solid place in my life that I can always hold onto, as one might begin to explore the vastness of the world. A railing/home to which one could hold on too.

    Out of it, new life emerges. That what what was once the seed of the design of life, becomes and became the children and their children. Our grandchildren.

    It is no great feat that the ages of the scientists "who endeavor now" speak about the world, are in their youths and are much as my own children. Quite capable, to face and handle the world with sound reasoning and judgement. Will become the "parents of life" as this is past on, from one generation to the next.

    The Proof is not Enough?

    It could not and did not happen without "energy" thrusting itself into the capability of what all things could become? You ask for proof? It is all around you.

    "What is a pipe?"



    So where is this "stillness," out of which all things are borne? If there is no basis from which for all such things to exists? What is space then, and I am first drawn to coordinated systems? The foundational perspective perhaps?



    Is it all such a muddle that you can't tell there is a pattern emerging from within the self? The "energy you have as to what plans and lessons you will engage and of course hidden amongst all this information you will make certain "conclusions?" You own that. If you take it inside, "you own it."

    But there is more to it for sure. There is more to it, in what we think of what is "inside" can be outside, and this exchange with reality, again forces us to ask? Where did it all begin?

    A condense Matter theorist might deal with the matters in a special kind of way? It also forms the basis of my thinking, and again, I am somewhat biased in my views. It colors this whole bloggery. The way in which I might look at Mendelev's view of the world in the most colorful and harmonical in realization?

    Wednesday, April 05, 2006

    Quantum Mechanics: Determinism at Planck Scale



    Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself?- Gerard t' Hooft



    Albert Einstein used harmonic oscillators to understand specific heats of solids and found that energy levels are quantized. This formed one of the key bridges between classical and quantum mechanics.

    Can harmonic oscillators serve as a bridge between quantum mechanics and special relativity?


    It is nice Paul that you continue to bring perspective forward here for consideration.

    I'll hope you will supply the paragraph one day that made the lights go on for you about what you are percieving, and from what you have understood having read Einstein's words in later life. Many tend to think Einstein was unproductive in his later life?



    The basis of the paper you brought forward for inspection, is really quite significant, in my views. I'll tell you what I see and from this discussion, the ideas of what the Riemann's Hypothesis might mean in the expansion of cyclical processes we might have seen in the Ulam spiral perhaps?



    You have been developing that perspective for a quite a while, as your numbers attest to this expression. So what are Poincare cycles? This I'll hold off for a bit, becuase I am returning to the earlier discussion wehad about what Zero actually means. Do you remember? Perhaps you could sum it up again from our consversationin the comment section.

    You describe returning to the Laughlin and the foundational perspectives, for a better look. Type in "emergence" or "first principle" into the blog search feature, would be quite productive I think.

    This is a good indicator to me that the route to describing the process although very difficult in ascertaing value in the "dissapation effect" of the virtual blackhole of Hooft, what value is this insight if it did not have a basis for which it could work?

    THE MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR DETERMINISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS by Gerard ’t Hooft

    One now may turn this observation around. A closed system that can only be in a finite number of different states, making transitions at discrete time intervals, would necessarily evolve back into itself after a certain amount of time, thus exhibiting what is called a Poincar´e cycle. If there were no information loss, these Poincar´e cycles would tend to become very long, with a periodicity that would increase exponentially with the size of the system. If there is information loss, for instance in the form of some dissipation effect, a system may eventually end up in Poincar´e cycles with much shorter periodicities. Indeed, time does not have to be discrete in that case, and the physical variables may form a continuum; there could be a finite set of stable orbits such that, regardless the initial configuration, any orbit is attracted towards one of these stable orbits; they are the limit cycles.


    So Hooft is explaining this for us here? Only in a "positive" expression?

    Before movng onthen soemthings would have had to been made clear as far as I can tell in regards to the basis of what zero actually means.

    An Energy of Empty Space?

    Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothingness. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property of space that Einstein discovered is that more space can actually come into existence. Einstein's gravity theory makes a second prediction: "empty space" can have its own energy. This energy would not be diluted as space expands, because it is a property of space itself; as more space came into existence, more of this energy-of-space would come into existence as well. As a result, this form of energy would cause the universe to expand faster and faster as time passes. Unfortunately, no one understands why space should contain the observed amount of energy and not, say, much more or much less.


    Once you get to th ebulk space it is extremely hard to explain how I gothere in my visual thinking but it is true that I see dynamcial spaces and all inlcusive views of the science of this original encapsulated in a geometrical process. Whether it's right or not is another question. I know this:)

    While D brane analyisis had been given to another for perspective in relation to how we see Belenstein bound and the horizon of value, being describe by CFT, we know well then that the abstraction of D brane thinking has to answer to those microscopial visonistic qualites of a very dynamcial place?

    That what has happen inside the blackhole, had something else as well to consider? Anomalies in perception then exist in how we see the quark Gluon plasma in relation to the principals of superfluids.

    Why molasses and ice cream production might seem important to some, while others might dismiss the childest antics of the condense matter theorist?

    So while these things are happening we should know that the condition elevated to bulk persepctive would have one see graviton production, as constituents of this bulk space. This derivation placed the bulk perspectve within grasp of what the harmonic oscillator means as we move our peceptions to the flat spacetime arrived at in the production of the quark Gluon plasma, that we are so boldly talking about here in views of the langrangian space.

    I see in the WMAP perspective held to analogies of the sound in polarization modes as, nodes and anti-nodes and are really interesting when held to that perspective about what we might think of in relation to how we see particle physics having undergone a model change, as well as a perspective one as well.

    This is a fifth dimensional view accomplished.

    See:

  • Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

  • Harmonic Oscillation

  • Warm Dark Matter

  • Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
  • Sunday, April 02, 2006

    Nodes and Anti-nodes

    Tool's for measure.

    The center of the gyroscope is a jewel-like sphere of fused quartz. These spheres, the size of Ping-Pong balls, are the roundest objects ever made by man. The tiny spheres are enclosed inside a housing chamber to prevent disruption from sound waves, and chilled to almost absolute zero to prevent their molecular structure from creating a disturbance. The accuracy of these gyroscopes is 30 million times greater than any gyroscope ever built.


    Making Strings in the lab, made me think of Clifford and the ice cream mix that he was privy too, by joining condense matter [ahem...string:] theorists, on a Friday night? :)Nitrogen, and superconductors seem to go hand in hand? Made me think of GPB and [whoops my mistake-not-nobium sphere], were mention for a reason.:)



    Normally I do not like to encourage such a view held to speculations, but the transferance to 3d effective thinking and all that, had me look at WMAP, was a process lead through by valuating sound in such analogies. As a layman, I hope I am forgiven.

    Is it the process?

    Visitors' shadows manipulate and reshape projected images of "Buckyballs." "Buckyball," or a buckminsterfullerene molecule, is a closed cage-structure molecule with a carbon network. "Buckyball" was named for R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (1895-1983), a scientist, philosopher and inventor, best known for creating the geodesic dome.

    Nanomandala:
    The purposeful arrangement of individual atoms bears some resemblance to the methods monks use to laboriously create sand images particle by particle, however, Eastern and Western cultures use these bottom-up building practices with very different perceptions and purposes.


    Photo and text credit: © 2003 Museum Associates/Los Angeles County Museum of Art



    To me it is a interesting way of seeing what is happening in space held by perception. BUcky balls and such, from my early days of reading BuckminsterFuller and his interesting building concepts, had somehow morphed into dynamical triangulation, used in the monte carlo method of quantum gravity perceptions.

    Dr. Jenny's cymatic images are truly awe-inspiring, not only for their visual beauty in portraying the inherent res-ponsiveness of matter to sound (vibration) but because they inspire a deep re-cognition that we, too, are part and parcel of this same complex and intricate vibrational matrix -- the music of the spheres! These pages illumine the very principles which inspired the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Plato, and cosmologists Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler.


    Dimensional views of the "quark to quark measure" had me see the dynamics of this distance?

    How much more then would such a weak field describe for us the oscillation of the neutrino, from one phase state to another. One distance to another? A revealled in cosmic rays, as "new physics perhaps" that extends beyond the standard model?



    Paul Dirac

    When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.


    If for one moment you continue the thought processes in light of visionary changes sought by and spoken in context of polarization effects in the WMAP, then such views have a profound effect, to what was always interesting data from cosmological apprehensions in discovery.

    Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect92 April 2006 wikipedia)
    The Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect is a particle physics process which acts to enhance neutrino oscillations in matter.


    While dynamic functions are being revealled to me of microprocesses( phases states), these dynamics are always interesting from what the geometrical perpecive of what was derived from Dirac.

    A "three dimensional view" of what may be happening in the abstraction of space dynamics seen in UV perspective described in analogy to Gauss's coordinates?

    Something much more profound and detail in a greater depth of thinking of an abstractual nature perhaps? B Field dynamics, would be a interesting comparison while holding mind in geometrical abstraction?

    Antineutrinos From Distant Reactors Simulate the Disappearance of Solar Neutrinos
    The potential importance of the Kamland results goes well beyond the solar-neutrino problem. Particle theorists hope that the masses and flavor compositions of the neutrino mass eigenstates will help point the way to an encompassing unification beyond today's manifestly incomplete standard model of fundamental particles and their interactions. Detailed knowledge of the neutrino states might also elucidate a central problem of cosmology: How did matter come to dominate over antimatter in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang? Does the mixing of neutrino states harbor the symmetry-breaking mechanism that could have done the trick?


    Oscillating flavorsThe three neutrino mass eigenstates are presumed to be different coherent superpositions of the three flavor eigenstates (ne, nm, and nt) associated with the three charged leptons: the electron, the muon, and the tau. There is good evidence that only two of the three mass eigenstates contribute significantly to ne. In that approximation, one can write



    The question always arises in my mind about the quantum harmonical oscillations, as part of a much larger inherent feature of reality, with which we might view WMAP. Or, events that arise from the sun. Could such analogy, born in the sun's process spit out the nature of the neutrino?

    The plates can be made visible by mounting a mirror behind the row of plates, angled so that the top of the plates are visible to the audience (same idea as in Polarization by Scattering). Create the optimum angle for the front rows, as the back rows will be looking down on the plates anyway. Make sure the cello bow is nice and tactile by treating it with rosin before the performance. Sprinkle the sand on the plates so that it forms an even cover. Don't overdo the amount.