Pages

Showing posts with label Emergence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emergence. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Consciousness, as a Biophotonic System

The structure of optical radiation emitted by the samples of loach fish eggs is studied. It was found earlier that such radiation perform the communications between distant samples, which result in the synchronization of their development. The photon radiation in form of short quasi-periodic bursts was observed for fish and frog eggs, hence the communication mechanism can be similar to the exchange of binary encoded data in the computer nets via the noisy channels. The data analysis of fish egg radiation demonstrates that in this case the information encoding is similar to the digit to time analogue algorithm. Photonic Communications and Information Encoding in Biological Systems
Of course there is some difficulty by assigning life in human form as an assumption of coordinating a life form system based entirely on computerized processes. But at the same time, there has been this struggle with coordinating the idea behind color of gravity and sonification maturation with the basis of understanding the emotive system as part of the communicating system of our experience.

 The term biophotonics denotes a combination of biology and photonics, with photonics being the science and technology of generation, manipulation, and detection of photons, quantum units of light. Photonics is related to electronics and photons.Photons play a central role in information technologies such as fiber optics the way electrons do in electronics.

So definitely,  I would want some physical process that would emulate the sensitivity with which any detector would be present in the determination of those emotions present in the system at any time during any experience.

Nobody is quite sure how cells produce biophotons but the latest thinking is that various molecular processes can emit photons and that these are transported to the cell surface by energy carying excitons. A similar process carries the energy from photons across giant protein matrices during photosynthesis. Biophoton Communication: Can Cells Talk Using Light?

The very topic(biophotonics) while verging on the one side of mysticism, it begs for sensor development processes that would delve deeper into our psychological makeup and physiological processes,  to bring understanding to the human form and endocrine system as a messenger conduit for such communications?

So of course there are many difficulties in recognizing that consciousness itself would speak too, The Photon and Emergence, suffice it is to say that, consciousness could include emotive forces that are derived from such biophoton messengers that help to define the experience?  So this in a way is a starting point for me about what such science may reveal, that we could say such psychological experiences have definitive facets in the spectrum of observation that we are not currently cataloging?





TEDx Brussels 2010 - Stuart Hameroff - Do we have a quantum Soul?

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Fundamentals of Consciousness?

Ian Waldie/Getty Images
Science also lacks even a back-of-the-envelop concept explaining the emergence of consciousness from the behavior of mere matter. We have an elaborate understanding of the ways in which experience depends on neurobiology. But how consciousness arises out of the action of neurons, or how low-level chemical or atomic processes might explain why we are conscious — we haven't a clue.
We aren't even really sure what questions we should be asking.See: Are The Mind And Life Natural? 13.7 and by Alva Noë
I open with reference too, Is There A Place For The Mind In Physics? Part I as it sets up the question that looks as if it will lead to further discussion. Adam Frank will reveal more about, of course realizing this is Part 1, one assumes there should be more.

The basis of discussion seems to center around Thomas Nagel's work so it seems there is a foundational treatment here that is used to bounce off of,  in order to express Adam Frank's position(The truth is, while I deeply suspect he is wrong, I do find his perspective bracing.)He also writes, "Now, as 13.7 readers know, I am no fan of reductionism. In its grandest claims, reductionism tends to be more an affirmation of a faith then a tenable position about ontology (what exists in the world)." 

Okay, so the idea is expressed here then that what I had linked previous of Quantum Consciousness (Stuart Hameroff) and Stuart Kauffman on Beyond Reductionism some question for me about  how such measure could  have existed if the mind did not attempt to define it self as a "measure of something?" Alva sets the bar high by writing, "We aren't even really sure what questions we should be asking."

So there seems to be this group thinking over at 13.7 since Alvae's work on  October 12, 2012 that raises  the subject title presented by Adam Frank. It shows such connections in reference to Thomas Nagel's work. I forgot to include Stuart Kauffman before that in terms of emergent processes, as well as Tania Lombrozo , so you sort of get what I mean by as a "Group Think."


So to begin,  with out argument, consciousness "just is,"  or how else can such awareness exist for any of us of such a discussion? IN that sense the notion of any reductionist versions are not necessary because it would  not need to define parameters around anything other then, "are we aware?" Alva expresses this very nicely by  saying, "But how consciousness arises out of the action of neurons, or how low-level chemical or atomic processes might explain why we are conscious — we haven't a clue." 

So by asking us to impose a vision of a blue monkey, does Adam rank reveal some fundamentalism inference to what exists as a consciousness? I hope to explore more of this as we go along. Can we gain awareness without understanding that  an Observer exists?

Alvae explains it nicely as he askes us to recognize.

 We think we can't explain life, but only because we insist on adhering to a conception of life as vaguely spooky, some sort of vital spirit. And likewise, we think we can't explain consciousness, but again this is because we cling to a conception of consciousness as, well, somehow spiritual, and precisely because we insist on thinking of it as something that floats free of its physical substrates ("a ghost in the machine"), as something essentially interior and private. See: Are The Mind And Life Natural? 13.7 and by Alva Noë
 In a sense it is a call out to scientists to get beyond themselves as  Adam Frank is doing, as well as a call out to others to start to deal with the question with what exists "as is." Experimentally as a physicist I am not sure how a scientist can not be a reductionist. Adam Frank writes,"What if the Mind was something as real as Space and Time and Higgs Bosons?" . It is experimentally necessary to be specific and burdened with proof even if in speculation raised as a question.?



See Also:

Monday, January 14, 2013

Stuart Kauffman on Beyond Reductionism


"It is very good that Stu Kauffman and Lee are making this serious attempt to save a notion of time, since I think the issue of timelessness is central to the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics. The notion of time capsules is still certainly only a conjecture. However, as Lee admits, it has proven very hard to show that the idea is definitely wrong. Moreover, the history of physics has shown that it is often worth taking disconcerting ideas seriously, and I think timelessness is such a one. At the moment, I do not find Lee and Stu's arguments for time threaten my position too strongly."- Julian Barbour


 




Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.
BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED


Stuart Alan Kauffman (28 September 1939) is an US American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for proposing the first models of Boolean networks.

Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics.


BEYOND REDUCTIONISM

See:Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Hardcover)




See Also:

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

The Photon and Emergence



Consciousness Emerges From Light

 Interesting thoughts being expounded by Arthur Young

As a materialist, could you say that such a thing could exist..an action traveling in a space between.....the photon shot.....you visualize the spirit of something in comparison "to the light" and it's interaction?

 You would have to say then that spirit already exists and that the emergence of spirit into manifestation of reality is an photon interaction that is defined on the screen? So this is interesting thought process to me and Arthur Young places this in mind about what always exists?



What can be gained then from a mathematical world in terms of Plato's realization or Jung's interrelation of the universal mind's ability to gather things from it,  to form any thought. To see the idea as a form of that emergence.




See:

Monday, October 01, 2012

Scienceshow/Nanotechnology

PictureThis
 
 This show sequence contains material for easily more than 2 hours of stand-up nanotechnology show with plenty of hands-on activities to keep the audience occupied for much longer. There is a kind of red thread going through the show, but emphasis is on showing the wide variety of nanoscale phenomena people will see in their every day life or that can be demonstrated without complicated setupNanotechnology Demonstration Experiments and Hands-on Activities

See AlsoThe Opensource Handbook of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology



Historical developments-

Saturday, July 28, 2012

About Knowledge

"As to you, Life, I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths, No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before." "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman

Justified true belief.....does it matter what knowledge could exist in or about knowing that all knowledge exists out there somewhere and that you only have to access it? How do you do that?


Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them. See:The Arch of Aristotelian Logic

What is self evident for you at the time......your accumulating experiencing with an inductive/deductive relationship at the time and what arises at that moment. It is a conclusion about and is what connects you to the answer?



Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte
                    Probabilties
                 (The Fifth Dimension)
                         |
                         |
                  Idea of the pipe
                        / \
                       /   \
                      /     \
                 Picture of the pipe
                    /         \
                   /           \
                  /             \
               The real pipe and form  
 
It may not mean something to someone else but it is an opportune time for you then and now. You provide the "access point" when you ask the question. That's why you see the "?" mark.

Awareness of the development of the constitution as it applies to all human beings in a free and democratic society was thought to imply that the deduction of its principles should arise in what can be gained from it? What is arrived at and about what is being "self evident" too and for all people? So "the draft" in language was very important to one's constitution. Not just to a country, but in a person too. You see?

Knowledge then is about what you learn at this time.....could be the measure of the whole life...or could be a measure of the moment in time. This is of value to you. This is about that which is of measure when it is weighted against something of great meaning to you? How do you value that knowledge?

This is what will be remembered.

 Polymath

The diversity of one's knowledge can overlap many areas. Such trends in the sciences are seeing such benefits from cross pollination of the trades(aspect of the different areas of the sciences) as applied to those different sciences.

 For example it is known that condense matter physics is of importance to theoretical approaches as a sign of the process toward identifying first principles? One may use string theory to push back perspective to the beginning time?

 Can one use philosophy to better manufacture the question? Sean Carroll thought it might be of use to coordinate the developmental positions with regard to science and philosophy to produce a clarity in developing the question?

When you see in many ways you see where many things connect?

 Sir Isaac Newton was very proficient at doing this. You may not have liked his alchemy and thought it an ancient way, but he cared about the way he related to people.

 He wanted to improve his condition so he knew that with his diversity of knowledge with and about the structure of the planet,  that the structure of himself,  lead to something very philosophical about his being. "To combine things" to make himself a better person.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Music of the Quantum



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: Superconductivity Dance Flash Mob

Friday, January 22, 2010

Historical Figures Lead Us to the Topic of Entanglement

The Solvay Congress of 1927

We regard quantum mechanics as a complete theory for which the fundamental physical and mathematical hypotheses are no longer susceptible of modification.

--Heisenberg and Max Born, paper delivered to Solvay Congress of 1927

You know I have watched the long drawn out conversation on Backreaction about what was once already debated, to have advanced to current status in the world represented as a logic orientated process with regard to entanglement.

What are it's current status in terms of its expression experimentally to know what it is we are doing with something that had been debated long ago?



Solvay Physics Conference 1927 02:55 - 2 years ago

The most known people who participated in the conference were Ervin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Auguste Piccard, Paul Dirac, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Marie Curie, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and others. The film opens with quick shots of Erwin Schrodinger and Niels Bohr. Auguste Piccard of the University of Brussels follows and then the camera re-focuses on Schrodinger and Bohr. Schrodinger who developed wave mechanics never agreed with Bohr on quantum mechanics. Solvay gave Heisenberg an opportunity to discuss his new uncertainty principle theory. Max Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function ended determinism in atomic world. These men - Bohr, Heisenberg, Kramers, Dirac and Born together with Born represent the founding fathers of quantum mechanics. Louis de Broglie wrote his dissertation on the wave nature of matter which Schrodinger used as basis for wave mechanics. Albert Einstein whose famous response to Born's statistical interpretation of wave function was "God does not play dice." Twenty-nine physicists, the main quantum theorists of the day, came together to discuss the topic "Electrons and Photons". Seventeen of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners. Following is a "home movie" shot by Irving Langmuir, (the 1932 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry). It captures 2 minutes of an intermission in the proceedings. Twenty-one of the 29 attendees are on the film. --- It's Never too Late to Study: http://www.freesciencelectures.com/ --- Notice: This video is copyright by its respectful owners. The website address on the video does not mean anything. ---

***

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory

First published Mon May 10, 2004; substantive revision Wed Aug 5, 2009

In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory, a debate that continues today. The paper features a striking case where two quantum systems interact in such a way as to link both their spatial coordinates in a certain direction and also their linear momenta (in the same direction). As a result of this “entanglement”, determining either position or momentum for one system would fix (respectively) the position or the momentum of the other. EPR use this case to argue that one cannot maintain both an intuitive condition of local action and the completeness of the quantum description by means of the wave function. This entry describes the argument of that 1935 paper, considers several different versions and reactions, and explores the ongoing significance of the issues they raise.

Might I confuse you then to see that their is nothing mystical about what our emotive states implore, that we might not also consider the purpose of Venn Logic, or, a correlation to Fuzzy logic to prepare the way for how we can become emotive entangled in our psychology, are ways "biologically mixed with our multilevel perspective" about how photons interact, to see that such a color of debate could have amounted to a distinction that arises from within. Which can manifest itself on a real world stage that is psychological forced out of the confines of human emotion, to be presented as a real world force "bridle or unbridled" with regard to the human condition?

See :


  • Entanglement Interpretation of Black Hole Entropy 


  • See Also:Backreaction: Testing the foundations of quantum mechanics

    Tuesday, August 19, 2008

    The New Garden of Eden

    Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.
    BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED

    Stuart Alan Kauffman (28 September 1939) is an US American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for proposing the first models of Boolean networks.

    Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics.


    BEYOND REDUCTIONISM

    See:Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Hardcover)

    Well now, I have followed the work of those whose ultimate destination has been by seeking results from LHC as to the nature of some Higg's field that would bring together an organizational effort to the particle of nature. Now I should be much clearer here just as Stuart Kauffman should.

    Higgs Fields

    A Higgs field (named after a Scottish physicist Peter Higgs) is a field supposed to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass (and, because of Einstein's equivalence principle, gravitational mass). When the universe is extremely hot, a Higgs field (which is supposed to have a certain curve of potential energy; as regards the shape of this curve, there is no unique consensus, except for a certain general feature, among the physicists) exerts a wild influence; but we will neglect this here. Once the universe cools down enough, below a certain temerature, the Higgs field assumes a certain value (i.e. a value of the Higgs field) which corresponds to the lowest energy level (i.e. the potential energy is zero, but the value of the Higgs field is nonzero; this level may be called vacuum). And this energy level continues to prevail throughout the whole universe (uniform, nonzero Higgs field).


    So here I am alone thinking about this self organization that goes on and I picked out Stuart Kauffman's book because I know that such a view is garnered by the likes of Lee Smolin, that it presents a challenge for me.

    Been at it long enough to know there are opposing views and methods to determination that shall judge one's approach as too the "nature of reality." I am not going to go into the definition of this nature of reality but to assume that such a definition will become apparent in the selection of this title and the consequence of choosing Stuart's book. My reasons for expanding here under this title of the new Garden of Eden.

    How it it that I could ever compare the very nature of the "Arch Model" to the insightful development of us as participants in the nature of reality that we could shape our destines and not think us less then a participant in this adventure called life.

    At 9:15 AM, August 18, 2008, Blogger Plato said...
    Experimentally, this became a basis for exploration which implanted experimental choice departures from euclidean space, which is flat.

    This was a mathematical adventure of "pure thought" toward the process of interpreting this mathematics in the natural world.

    How could one say the experimental process was first when such thought had to exist? It had to already exist in nature for us to test the theorization by definition.

    So we emulate the process by experimentation. Oh sweet "spooky action at a distance?"


    One should not think that such an avenue of research had not taken me down this road in regards to spooky, that I would not have adventured too, entanglement, or scattering amplitudes, that I would not of looked at Young's experiment and thought about the photon's travel. The combination or how calorimeters have been used to discern this interaction in the decay process.

    Has Reductionism run to it's limit?

    This is what Stuart Kauffman did not realize when thinking about reductionism or what Robert Laughlin spoke of toward the idea's of self organizational attributes of those things that gather, while we take them apart. It's not that they ever came to a definition of this limit, but tried to explain reductionism away, by the introduction of new ways, new approaches.


    The Keystone


    ON one side of this arch is an approach to Reductionism, and on the other, is emergence. The keystone, is the Equivalence principal.

    Monday, July 28, 2008

    The Inconceivable being Believable

    While string theory does not, at this point, predict our world, it can at the very least plausibly encompass it. No other theory has been shown to do that. Aaron Bergman's book review of Peter Woit's


    I think there is always an upper limit with which we can assign "our beliefs" and when given a set of tools with which to assess our current situations in science, we learn that what was once "inconceivable" can now be believable.

    So having assumed "this set of tools and the analysis's of the beauty" and it's allure, one can move forward, as I have, based on these premises. To take it into the world we know and operate in. Indeed, how fragile a "house of Glass."

    While "this view" of myself is inclined to a metaphysical point of view, and less then adequate to the valuations of science, I can be thought of, "as less then," and sent to the exclusions of the evaluation that science demands. This does not change "my philosophical point of view." We know what science thinks of this too.:)

    The Inconceivable

    This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. 11


    I have over my time researching the process here in science, learn to see the scientists in one form or another, equate themself according to the "peak realization and beyond" as something either God like, or, the allure of the "not believable."

    To me such a "systemic behaviour" can cause outward afflictions to the associates in science. These are less then wanting in regards to characterization. A religiosity's appeal to the beyond, whether atheistic as a position or not. This must be perceived as either being realistic, or felt wanting for, as an adherence to the ethics and morality of science.

    The Believable

    Has become something more then the topic of string theory itself. While we think about the issue in regard to science's pursuance, this has been deterred by other issues, as I relate them in regards too, "the Conceivable and the not Believable."

    The Inconceivable being Believable

    Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries[/b] Kuhn now moves past his initial topic of paradigm to scientific discovery saying that in order for there to be a discovery, an anomaly must be detected within the field of study. He discusses several different studies and points out the anomaly that invoked the scientific discovery. Later in the chapter he begins to discuss how the anomaly can be incorporated into the discovery to satisfy the scientific community.

    There are three different characteristics of all discoveries from which new sorts of phenomena emerge. These three characteristics are proven through an experiment dealing with a deck of cards. The deck consisted of anomalous cards (e.g. the red six of spades shown on the previous page) mixed in with regular cards. These cards were held up in front of students who were asked to call out the card they saw, and in most cases the anomaly was not detected.


    I of course weight the relations and counterpoints held by Steven Weinberg in this case. I would rather think about the "essence of observation here" rather then the foundational ideas exemplified by the whole issue of paradigm change.

    The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

    I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

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


    So we come to the real topic here. How one opens the door to what is considered "beyond." I will only point to the previous persons who have allowed themself the freedoms to move from a position of the inconceivable, who have worked the process in science, and come up with an idealization of what they have discovered. What it means to them now, as they assume this new "paradigm change," to the way the work had always seemed to them.

    I will point to the "airs with which such transitions" take place that the environment is conducive to such journeys, that the place selected, could be the most idealistic in terms of where one may feel that their creativity is most aptly felt to themselves. Of course such issues as to the temperances of such creativity is always on my mind too, yet it is of essence that life be taken care of, and that such nurturing understand that the best of society is always the luxuries with which we can assign happiness? Then these in society become the grandeur of art and culture to become, the freedoms of expression, while there is always this struggle to survive.

    Wednesday, January 23, 2008

    Ueber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen.

    As I pounder the very basis of my thoughts about geometry based on the very fabric of our thinking minds, it has alway been a reductionist one in my mind, that the truth of the reality would a geometrical one.



    The emergence of Maxwell's equations had to be included in the development of GR? Any Gaussian interpretation necessary, so that the the UV coordinates were well understood from that perspective as well. This would be inclusive in the approach to the developments of GR. As a hobbyist myself of the history of science, along with the developments of today, I might seem less then adequate in the adventure, I persevere.




    On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry.
    Bernhard Riemann
    Translated by William Kingdon Clifford

    [Nature, Vol. VIII. Nos. 183, 184, pp. 14--17, 36, 37.]

    It is known that geometry assumes, as things given, both the notion of space and the first principles of constructions in space. She gives definitions of them which are merely nominal, while the true determinations appear in the form of axioms. The relation of these assumptions remains consequently in darkness; we neither perceive whether and how far their connection is necessary, nor a priori, whether it is possible.

    From Euclid to Legendre (to name the most famous of modern reforming geometers) this darkness was cleared up neither by mathematicians nor by such philosophers as concerned themselves with it. The reason of this is doubtless that the general notion of multiply extended magnitudes (in which space-magnitudes are included) remained entirely unworked. I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of constructing the notion of a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It will follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of different measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular case of a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary consequence that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general notions of magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other conceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from experience. Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from which the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from the nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be several systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure-relations of space - the most important system for our present purpose being that which Euclid has laid down as a foundation. These matters of fact are - like all matters of fact - not necessary, but only of empirical certainty; they are hypotheses. We may therefore investigate their probability, which within the limits of observation is of course very great, and inquire about the justice of their extension beyond the limits of observation, on the side both of the infinitely great and of the infinitely small.



    For me the education comes, when I myself am lured by interest into a history spoken to by Stefan and Bee of Backreaction. The "way of thought" that preceded the advent of General Relativity.


    Einstein urged astronomers to measure the effect of gravity on starlight, as in this 1913 letter to the American G.E. Hale. They could not respond until the First World War ended.

    Translation of letter from Einstein's to the American G.E. Hale by Stefan of BACKREACTION

    Zurich, 14 October 1913

    Highly esteemed colleague,

    a simple theoretical consideration makes it plausible to assume that light rays will experience a deviation in a gravitational field.

    [Grav. field] [Light ray]

    At the rim of the Sun, this deflection should amount to 0.84" and decrease as 1/R (R = [strike]Sonnenradius[/strike] distance from the centre of the Sun).

    [Earth] [Sun]

    Thus, it would be of utter interest to know up to which proximity to the Sun bright fixed stars can be seen using the strongest magnification in plain daylight (without eclipse).


    Fast Forward to an Effect

    Bending light around a massive object from a distant source. The orange arrows show the apparent position of the background source. The white arrows show the path of the light from the true position of the source.

    The fact that this does not happen when gravitational lensing applies is due to the distinction between the straight lines imagined by Euclidean intuition and the geodesics of space-time. In fact, just as distances and lengths in special relativity can be defined in terms of the motion of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum, so can the notion of a straight geodesic in general relativity.



    To me, gravitational lensing is a cumulative affair that such a geometry borne into mind, could have passed the postulates of Euclid, and found their way to leaving a "indelible impression" that the resources of the mind in a simple system intuits.

    Einstein, in the paragraph below makes this clear as he ponders his relationship with Newton and the move to thinking about Poincaré.

    The move to non-euclidean geometries assumes where Euclid leaves off, the basis of Spacetime begins. So such a statement as, where there is no gravitational field, the spacetime is flat should be followed by, an euclidean, physical constant of a straight line=C?

    Einstein:

    I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have just set forth, because without it I should have been unable to formulate the theory of relativity. ... In a system of reference rotating relatively to an inert system, the laws of disposition of rigid bodies do not correspond to the rules of Euclidean geometry on account of the Lorentz contraction; thus if we admit non-inert systems we must abandon Euclidean geometry. ... If we deny the relation between the body of axiomatic Euclidean geometry and the practically-rigid body of reality, we readily arrive at the following view, which was entertained by that acute and profound thinker, H. Poincare:--Euclidean geometry is distinguished above all other imaginable axiomatic geometries by its simplicity. Now since axiomatic geometry by itself contains no assertions as to the reality which can be experienced, but can do so only in combination with physical laws, it should be possible and reasonable ... to retain Euclidean geometry. For if contradictions between theory and experience manifest themselves, we should rather decide to change physical laws than to change axiomatic Euclidean geometry. If we deny the relation between the practically-rigid body and geometry, we shall indeed not easily free ourselves from the convention that Euclidean geometry is to be retained as the simplest. (33-4)


    It is never easy for me to see how I could have moved from what was Euclid's postulates, to have graduated to my "sense of things" to have adopted this, "new way of seeing" that is also accumulative to the inclusion of gravity as a concept relevant to all aspects of the way in which one can see reality.

    See:

  • On the Hypothese at the foundations of Geometry

  • Gravity and Electromagnetism?

  • "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" by Clifford M. Will
  • Wednesday, January 02, 2008

    The center and the whole-what it means?

    If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.


    Part of the understanding here is that in having "touched that centre," realize that it is the source from which any theory will begin it's emergence into the reality of our modelled and wakeful world.

    Now Peter LYnd makes talk of the Black/White hole. It is part of my understanding for such a thought to occur, realizing from a source it could manifest into our daily world, why not that "this creation" impel any thought construct into manifestation as well? The universe the same?


    From the Buddhist perspective there are at least two senses that we can give to this phrase 'being with creation' that Von Franz uses in this context. First, according to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, if we have developed the requisite skill in meditation, at the moment of death we are presented with a unique opportunity to connect with this 'central hole where creation takes place' - that is, with the 'emptiness' or 'plenum' or 'fullness' that is at the center of things. According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it manifests at that time as a 'clear light'. If we are capable of realizing what is going on at that moment we also gain control over the creative process in which emptiness manifests in form, and conscious reincarnation becomes possible. But, secondly, we can also take all of this in a less literal, more figurative, PSYCHOLOGICAL sense - as a description of what must take place within the individual in order for her to become a conscious participant in her own inner creative processes, an agent of personal change, and skilled at what is sometimes called 'paradigm shifting'.


    I mean how many in science have this standard by which they must work? Have this other side to them and their life? The "questioning and wanting know" of this other mystery to life? What is this mystery I am talking about?

    Well to me I have this "indirect way of answering" that reveals this uncertainty, yet, I have this innate sense of "knowing without knowing how I know." That's not really a good answer is it?:) Some will attach themselves to this previous statement. I have seen it before, and I know they will answer accordingly.

    I've talked about the centre many times on this site.

    I've open up this post with the information that lead me along never really knowing the direction, yet fully confident that in time it would fall into place.

    Visual Imaging.

    I can't go into a whole lot here other to say that the source of these images are intriguing to say the least.

    I am presented with a "paradoxical situation" that is confusing for me, until, I seen this process in action. The "inner/outer" somehow being explained within the confines of our beings. So while I see things happening on the outside, they were first implemented within. I don't feel happy with what I just wrote. Ihave to show you what I mean by way of images that show this paradoxical situation.

    Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

    How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

    He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

    But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)


    It would not be complete without introducing another paradoxical situation that Brian Greene himself presented. But before I do that I wanted to write here something else for consideration. It will speak to the Garrett Lisi's and their idea about imaging that comes deep from within them. How they organize a "whole structure of creation" from within themself. Model it, outside themself. It's more then just a fingerprint.

    One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points. That each theory involves loops-in string theory, these are string loops; in loop quantum gravity, they're harder to describe non-mathmatically, but, roughly speaking, they're elementary loops of space-suggests there might be a connection. This possibility is further supported by the fact that on a few problems accessible to both, such as blackhole entropy, the two theories agree fully. And on the question of spacetime's constituents, both theories suggest that there is some kind of atomized structure. Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene


    Take note on that last part of Greene' statement Garrett. The paradox as follows,

    Greene:
    it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)


    Well not to be undone, and more explicit in this example,

    In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)


    So I am not sure if this hits home for any of you? I will push on here in a bit. Life is calling me here.

    Friday, September 28, 2007

    The History of Magnetic Vision

    Grossmann is getting his doctorate on a topic that is connected with non-Euclidean geometry. I don’t know what it is.
    Einstein to Mileva Maric,1902


    Animal Navigation

    The long-distance navigational abilities of animals have fascinated humans for centuries and challenged scientists for decades. How is a butterfly with a brain weighing less than 0.02 grams able to find its way to a very specific wintering site thousands of kilometers away, even though it has never been there before? And, how does a migratory bird circumnavigate the globe with a precision unobtainable by human navigators before the emergence of GPS satellites? To answer these questions, multi-disciplinary approaches are needed. A very good example of such an approach on shorter distance navigation is the classical ongoing studies on foraging trips of Cataglyphis desert ants. My Nachwuchsgruppe intends to use mathematical modelling, physics, quantum chemistry, molecular biology, neurobiology, computer simulations and newly developed laboratory equipment in combination with behavioral experiments and analyses of field data to achieve a better understanding of the behavioral and physiological mechanisms of long distance navigation in insects and birds.


    Tony Smith has some interesting information in response to a post by Clifford of Asymptotia.

    Clifford writes:
    This is simply fascinating. I heard about it on NPR. While it is well known that birds are sensitive to the earth’s magnetic field, and use it to navigate, apparently it’s only been recently shown that this sensitivity is connected directly to the visual system (at least in some birds). The idea seems to be that the bird has evolved a mechanism for essentially seeing the magnetic field, presumably in the sense that magnetic information is encoded in the visual field and mapped to the brain along with the usual visual data


    While my post has been insulted by cutting it short(and stamping it and proclaiming irrelevance,) I'd like to think otherwise, even in face of his streamlining that Clifford likes to do. His blog, he can do what he wants of course.

    In any case, it seems reasonable to agree with Buhler, who concludes in his biography of Gauss that "the oft-told story according to which Gauss wanted to decide the question [of whether space is perfectly Euclidean] by measuring a particularly large triangle is, as far as we know, a myth."



    So I'll repeat the post of mine here and the part, that he has deleted. You had to know how to see the relevance of the proposition of birds in relation to the magnetic field of the earth, to know why the bird relation is so important.

    On Magnetic vision
    Rupert Sheldrake has had similar thoughts on this topic.

    "Numerous experiments on homing have already been carried out with pigeons. Nevertheless, after nearly a century of dedicated but frustrating research, no one knows how pigeons home, and all attempts to explain their navigational ability in terms of known senses and physical forces have so far proved unsuccessful. Researchers in this field readily admit the problem. 'The amazing flexibility of homing and migrating birds has been a puzzle for years. Remove cue after cue, and yet animals still retain some backup strategy for establishing flight direction.' 'The problem of navigation remains essentially unsolved.'


    Many of academics might have steered clear because of the the thoughts and subject he has about this? It seems to me that if this information is credible, then some of Rupert's work has some substance to it and hence, brings some credibility to the academic outlook?

    Update: Here I am adding some thoughts in regards to Rupert Sheldrake that I was having while reading his work. He had basically himself denounced the process of birds having an physiological connection to magnetic fields because of not having any information to support the magnetic vision Clifford is talking about. So Rupert moves beyond this speculation, to create an idea about what he calls Morphic resonance with regards to animals.

    So Rupert presents future data and theoretics in face of what we now know in terms of the neurological basis is experimentally being talked about in the article in question Clifford is writing about.

    On How to see in the Non Euclidean Geometrical World

    8.6 On Gauss's Mountains


    One of the most famous stories about Gauss depicts him measuring the angles of the great triangle formed by the mountain peaks of Hohenhagen, Inselberg, and Brocken for evidence that the geometry of space is non-Euclidean. It's certainly true that Gauss acquired geodetic survey data during his ten-year involvement in mapping the Kingdom of Hanover during the years from 1818 to 1832, and this data included some large "test triangles", notably the one connecting the those three mountain peaks, which could be used to check for accumulated errors in the smaller triangles. It's also true that Gauss understood how the intrinsic curvature of the Earth's surface would theoretically result in slight discrepancies when fitting the smaller triangles inside the larger triangles, although in practice this effect is negligible, because the Earth's curvature is so slight relative to even the largest triangles that can be visually measured on the surface. Still, Gauss computed the magnitude of this effect for the large test triangles because, as he wrote to Olbers, "the honor of science demands that one understand the nature of this inequality clearly". (The government officials who commissioned Gauss to perform the survey might have recalled Napoleon's remark that Laplace as head of the Department of the Interior had "brought the theory of the infinitely small to administration".) It is sometimes said that the "inequality" which Gauss had in mind was the possible curvature of space itself, but taken in context it seems he was referring to the curvature of the Earth's surface.
    See:Reflections on Relativity

    As a layperson, Riemann and Gauss were instrumental for helping me see beyond what we were accustom to in Euclidean, so I find Clifford's blog post extremely interesting as well. Maybe even a biological/physiological impute into our senses as well? Who knows?:)

    Einstein's youth and the compass, becomes the motivation that drives the vision of what exists beyond what was acceptable in that youth. The mystery. Creates a new method on how we view the world beyond the magnetic, to help us include the view in the gravitational one as well.

    From a early age, young Albert showed great interest in the world around him. When he was five years old, his father gave him a compass, and the child was enchanted by the device and intrigued by the fact the needle followed a invisible field to point always in the direction of the north pole.Reminiscing in old age, Einstein mentioned this incident as one of the factors that perhaps motivated him years later to study the gravitational field. God's Equation, by Amir D. Aczel, Pg 14


    While something could exist that is abstract, like for instance the Gaussian arc, this inclusion in the value of general relativity is well known. Mileva's response in quote above was the key for Einstein's views on developing General Relativity, and without it "electromagnetism would not, and could not" have been included geometrically in the theory of GR.

    It was a succession to "Gravitational wave production" that was understood in regards to Taylor and Hulse.


    The theory of relativity predicts that, as it orbits the Sun, Mercury does not exactly retrace the same path each time, but rather swings around over time. We say therefore that the perihelion -- the point on its orbit when Mercury is closest to the Sun -- advances.



    I would think this penduum exercise would make a deeper impression if held in concert with the way one might have look at Mercuries orbit.

    Or, binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 of Taylor and Hulse. These are macroscopic valutions in what the pendulum means. Would this not be true? See:Harmonic Oscillation

    I guess not every string theorist would know this? Maybe even Bee would understand that "German" is replace by another form of seeing using abstract language, for how everything can be seen in relation to the ground state? Where there are no gravitational waves, spacetime is flat.

    You had to know how such views on the navigation of the birds could have a direct link to the evolutionary output of the biology and physiology of the species. What Toposense?

    Yes it's a process where the mathematical minds look at knitting and such, in such modularc forms, to have said, "hey there is a space of thinking" that we can do really fancy twists and such.

    One thing us humans can certainly do is construct the monumental world reality with straight lines and such in the Euclidean view. But nature was there before we thought to change all it's curves.

    But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space. See: The Mind Field

    See here for more info on Grace.

    Look out into the wild world that nature itself presents and tell me what the ancient mind did not see. Native Americans lived closer to nature. Hopefully you'll understand why it is we must engage ourselves to experiencing the views of nature?:)

    Mandalic Construction

    See: The Last Mimzy

    The "Ancient Medicine wheels" might have been place accordingly? Do you imagine seeing in the abstract world, the magnetic view we see of earth in it's different disguise?

    So that last line about the "medicine wheels" probably caused Clifford to do what he did in regards to the post I wrote.

    Yes I am creating a direct link between the Medicine Wheels and the Medicine Wheel as a Mandala constructed by early Native Americans. Where they were shamanically placed on the earth.



    What is a Medicine Wheel?



    The term "medicine wheel" was first applied to the Big Horn Medicine Wheel in Wyoming, the most southern one known. That site consists of a central cairn or rock pile surrounded by a circle of stone; lines of cobbles link the central cairn and the surrounding circle. The whole structure looks rather like a wagon wheel lain-out on the ground with the central cairn forming the hub, the radiating cobble lines the spokes, and the surrounding circle the rim. The "medicine" part of the name implies that it was of religious significance to Native peoples.



    Figure 4 - Distribution of medicine wheel sites east of the Rockies


    What was of importance is the underlying psychological patterns that exist in the forms of Mandalas. That such a thing like the Medicine wheel, would retain a impact from one's life, to another life.

    There are various forms of mandalas with distinct concepts and different purposes. The individual representations range from the so-called Cosmic Mandalas, which transmit the ancient knowledge of the development of the universe and the world-systems which represents a high point among Mandalas dedicated to meditation; to the Mandalas of the Medicine Buddha which demonstrates how the Buddha-power radiates in all directions, portraying the healing power of the Buddha.

    It would not be easy to understand this "seed mandala" as it makes it way into conscious recognition. It arises to awareness through the subconscious pathway during our susceptibility in dream time. This open accessibility is the understanding that there is a closer connection to the universality of being, and the realization that the degrees beyond the "emotive body" is developing the understanding of the "mental one" as well as, leading to "the spiritual one."

    This comparative view is analogousness to development beyond the abstract view we see of earth in it's gravitational form.

    However, the signals that scientists hope to measure with LISA and other gravitational wave detectors are best described as "sounds." If we could hear them, here are some of the possible sounds of a gravitational wave generated by the movement of a small body inspiralling into a black hole.


    It would be much like a "energy packet" that would contain all that is demonstrated in "extravagant patterns." Look like a "flower in real life," or a "intricate pattern," while encouraging the person to explore these doorways and move on from.

    That seed contains all of the history we have supplanted to it by how we built previously and embedded all the philosophy we had learnt from it.

    The Emotional Body of the Earth

    Would to me seem very emotive in terms of it's weather. How such weather patterns spread across the earth. Also, it would not seem so strange then that while we would have seen polarization aspects in the cosmos, in terms of magnetic field variances in relation to north and south, we would see "this of value" in the earth as well?

    So would the earth have it's positive and negative developments in relation to aspect of it's weather? Most certainly psychological when the snows have lasted so long, one could indeed wish for warmer weather, but that's not what I mean. I mean on a physiological level, such ionic generations would indeed cause the state of the human body to react.

    Sunday, March 25, 2007

    Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

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


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

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

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

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

    Whence began this journey and revolution?

    LEONARD SUSSKIND:

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


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

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

    The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

    Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

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

    Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

    Unravelling String Theory

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



    See more here



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

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

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

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