Pages

Showing posts with label Entropy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Entropy. Show all posts

Friday, September 14, 2012

Computational Dilemma

Riemannian Geometry, also known as elliptical geometry, is the geometry of the surface of a sphere. It replaces Euclid's Parallel Postulate with, "Through any point in the plane, there exists no line parallel to a given line." A line in this geometry is a great circle. The sum of the angles of a triangle in Riemannian Geometry is > 180°.


Friedman Equation What is p density.

What are the three models of geometry? k=-1, K=0, k+1

 Negative curvature Omega=the actual density to the critical density

 If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omega m(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given? The basic understanding is the understanding of the evolution of Euclidean geometries toward the revelation of a dynamical understanding in the continued expression of that geometry toward a non Euclidean freedom within context of the universe..






Maybe one should look for "a location" and then proceed from there?


    TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram  A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle. by Jacob D. Bekenstein




Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restricted to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen. Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin


    Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondence between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinguish which description is more fundamental.Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking


The problem is the further you go in terms of particle reductionism you meet a problem with discreteness in terms of "continuity of expression." I know what to call it and it is of value in science investigation. Which means the paradigmatic values with which one is govern by using discreteness in terms of lets say computational values might suffer?

While one might think that it would be easy to accept a foundational approach toward some computational view of reality that view suffers under the plight of what exists in terms of information out there?

If such a view of computational validation works in terms of viewing "a second life" then how would you approach the resolvability of mathematical functions that exist in abstractness and are applied to the nature of our expressions? Why has computations not solved the mathematical hypothesis of lets say Riemann?


 Joel:I wonder if this is related to the issue of "non-computability" of the human mind, put forward by Roger Penrose. Is this why we humans can do mathematics whereas a computer cannot ?

There are some interesting quotes here in following article that come real close to what is implied by that difference.

You raised a question that has always been a troubling one for me. On a general level how could such views have been arrived at that would allow one to access such a mathematical world?

The idea being that to get to the truth one had to turn inside and find the very roots of all thought in some geometrical form. The closer to that truth, the very understanding and schematics drawn in that form. Not all can say the search for such truth resides within? Why the need for such geometry in relativism? Riemann Hypothesis as a function of reality? Why has a computer not solved it?

My views were always general as to what we may have hoped to create in some kind of machine or mechanism. I just couldn't see this functionality in relation to the human brain as 1's and 0's.

I might say it never occurred to me the depth that it has occupied Penrose's Mind. The start of your question and the related perspectives of the authors revealed in the following discourse have raised a wide impact of views that seek to exemplify what is new to me as to what you are asking.

Yet the real world has made major advancements in terms of digital physics and hyper physics. Has any of this touched the the nature of consciousness. This would then lead to Penrose angle in relation to what consciousness is capable of and what a machine is capable of. That would be my guess.


Can one gleam the understanding of what exists all around them without the knowledge of how one can look at what is available to us in terms of our observations? You have to be able to use "distance" in order to arrive at the conclusion about the current state in terms of the geometry in order to understand how such perceptions are relevant characterization toward explaining the space and what may drive the universe in terms of it's expression.

So there are many on going experiments that help to further question that perspective test it and validate it.

The problem is that at a certain length things break down. How can consciousness then be imparted to what is geometrically inherent in our expressions of the reality in which we live? Topology? Continuity of expression?




 Paul- Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?


"On the right (Where do we come from?), we see the baby, and three young women - those who are closest to that eternal mystery. In the center, Gauguin meditates on what we are. Here are two women, talking about destiny (or so he described them), a man looking puzzled and half-aggressive, and in the middle, a youth plucking the fruit of experience. This has nothing to do, I feel sure, with the Garden of Eden; it is humanity's innocent and natural desire to live and to search for more life. A child eats the fruit, overlooked by the remote presence of an idol - emblem of our need for the spiritual. There are women (one mysteriously curled up into a shell), and there are animals with whom we share the world: a goat, a cat, and kittens. In the final section (Where are we going?), a beautiful young woman broods, and an old woman prepares to die. Her pallor and gray hair tell us so, but the message is underscored by the presence of a strange white bird. I once described it as "a mutated puffin," and I do not think I can do better. It is Gauguin's symbol of the afterlife, of the unknown (just as the dog, on the far right, is his symbol of himself). 

One then ponders how such a universe is part of something much greater in expression that one might want to see how this continuity of expression is portrayed in our universe. How such a balance is struck to maintain this feature as a geometrical understanding?

You have to go outside the box.  Cosmologists are limited by this perspective. Others venture well beyond the constrains applied by them. About a beginning and an end and all that in between. Birth and death are set within the greater expression of such a universe,  on and on.


 
See:

  1. What is Happening at the Singularity?
  2. Space and Time: Einstein and Beyond

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Different Approaches to a 5d world

Smolin: And there are published predictions for observable Planck scale deviations from energy momentum relations[22, 23] that imply predictions for experiments in progress such as AUGER and GLAST. [B]For those whose interest is more towards formal speculations concerning supersymmetry and higher dimensions than experiment, there are also results that show how the methods of loop quantum gravity may be extended to give background independent descriptions of quantum gravity in the higher and super realms[31]-[35][/B]. It thus seems like a good time for an introduction to the whole approach that may help to make the basic ideas, results and methods accessible to a wider range of physicists.

Dealing With a 5d World

I was trying to understand that once you get to see how the equation leads you too a understanding of that 5d world it allowed you to entertain all possibility based on this position.



Extra dimensions sound like science fiction, but they could be part of the real world. And if so, they might help explain mysteries like why the universe is expanding faster than expected, and why gravity is weaker than the other forces of nature.
Three dimensions are all we see -- how could there be any more? Einstein's general theory of relativity tells us that space can expand, contract, and bend. If one direction were to contract down to an extremely tiny size, much smaller than an atom, it would be hidden from our view. If we could see on small enough scales, that hidden dimension might become visible.

Here are some thoughts to consider?:)


Klein's Ordering of Geometries

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

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

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


Nature's Greastest Puzzle







This is a torus (like a doughnut) on which several circles are located. Unlike on a Euclidean plane, on this surface it is impossible to determine which circle is inside of which, since if you go from the black circle to the blue, to the red, and to the grey, you can continuously come back to the initial black, and likewise if you go from the black to the grey, to the red, and to the blue, you can also come back to the black.

Reichenbach then invites us to consider a 3-dimensional case (spheres instead of circles).






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)





THOMAS BANCHOFF has been a professor of mathematics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1967. He has written two books and fifty articles on geometric topics, frequently incorporating interactive computer graphics techniques in the study of phenomena in the fourth and higher dimensions


Today, however, we do have the opportunity not only to observe phenomena in four and higher dimensions, but we can also interact with them. The medium for such interaction is computer graphics. Computer graphic devices produce images on two-dimensional screens. Each point on the screen has two real numbers as coordinates, and the computer stores the locations of points and lists of pairs of points which are to be connected by line segments or more complicated curves. In this way a diagram of great complexity can be developed on the screen and saved for later viewing or further manipulation


Current research said something abut how the brain/mind can assume the reality in terms of randomness or end up realizing some chaotic function?  Well,  if such chaos is measured in the heat of thinking I am surprised we do not end up in some brain/mind heat death?:)

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Cosmic ray spallation


As this NASA chart indicates, 70 percent or more of the universe consists of dark energy, about which we know next to nothing
Other explanations of dark energy, called "quintessence," originate from theoretical high-energy physics. In addition to baryons, photons, neutrinos, and cold dark matter, quintessence posits a fifth kind of matter (hence the name), a sort of universe-filling fluid that acts like it has negative gravitational mass. The new constraints on cosmological parameters imposed by the HST supernova data, however, strongly discourage at least the simplest models of quintessence.


Of course my mind is thinking about the cosmic triangle of an event in the cosmos. So I am wondering what is causing the "negative pressure" as "dark energy," and why this has caused the universe to speed up.


SNAP-Supernova / Acceleration Probe-Studying the Dark Energy of the Universe
The discovery by the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) and the High-Z Supernova team that the expansion of the universe is accelerating poses an exciting mystery — for if the universe were governed by gravitational attraction, its rate of expansion would be slowing. Acceleration requires a strange “dark energy’ opposing this gravity. Is this Einstein’s cosmological constant, or more exotic new physics? Whatever the explanation, it will lead to new discoveries in astrophysics, particle physics, and gravitation.


By defining the context of particle collisions it was evident that such a place where such a fluid could have dominated by such energy in stars, are always interesting as to what is ejected from those same stars. What do those stars provide for the expression of this universe while we are cognoscente of the "arrow of time" explanation.


This diagram reveals changes in the rate of expansion since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago. The more shallow the curve, the faster the rate of expansion.


So of course these thoughts are shared by the perspective of educators to help us along. But if one did not understand the nature of the physical attributes of superfluids, how would one know to think of the relativistic conditions that high energy provides for us?


NASA/WMAP Scientific Team: Expanding Universe



So recognizing where these conditions are evident would be one way in which we might think about what is causing a negative pressure in the cosmos.

Given the assumption that the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (The Cosmological Principle) it can be shown that the corresponding distortion of space-time (due to the gravitational effects of this matter) can only have one of three forms, as shown schematically in the picture at left. It can be "positively" curved like the surface of a ball and finite in extent; it can be "negatively" curved like a saddle and infinite in extent; or it can be "flat" and infinite in extent - our "ordinary" conception of space. A key limitation of the picture shown here is that we can only portray the curvature of a 2-dimensional plane of an actual 3-dimensional space! Note that in a closed universe you could start a journey off in one direction and, if allowed enough time, ultimately return to your starting point; in an infinite universe, you would never return.


Of course it is difficult for me to understand this process, but I am certainly trying. If one had found that in the relativistic conditions of high energy scenarios a "similarity to a flattening out" associated with an accelerating universe what would this say about information travelling from the "origins of our universe" quite freely. How would this effect dark energy?

In physics, a perfect fluid is a fluid that can be completely characterized by its rest frame energy density ρ and isotropic pressure p.

Real fluids are "sticky" and contain (and conduct) heat. Perfect fluids are idealized models in which these possibilities are neglected. Specifically, perfect fluids have no shear stresses, viscosity, or heat conduction.

In tensor notation, the energy-momentum tensor of a perfect fluid can be written in the form

[tex] T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)\, U^\mu U^\nu + P\, \eta^{\mu\nu}\,[/tex]



where U is the velocity vector field of the fluid and where ημν is the metric tensor of Minkowski spacetime.

Perfect fluids admit a Lagrangian formulation, which allows the techniques used in field theory to be applied to fluids. In particular, this enables us to quantize perfect fluid models. This Lagrangian formulation can be generalized, but unfortunately, heat conduction and anisotropic stresses cannot be treated in these generalized formulations.

Perfect fluids are often used in general relativity to model idealized distributions of matter, such as in the interior of a star.


So events in the cosmos ejected the particles, what geometrical natures embued such actions, to have these particle out in space interacting with other forms of matter to create conditions that would seem conducive to me, for that negative pressure?

Cosmic ray spallation is a form of naturally occurring nuclear fission and nucleosynthesis. It refers to the formation of elements from the impact of cosmic rays on an object. Cosmic rays are energetic particles outside of Earth ranging from a stray electron to gamma rays. These cause spallation when a fast moving particle, usually a proton, part of a cosmic ray impacts matter, including other cosmic rays. The result of the collision is the expulsion of large members of nucleons (protons and neutrons) from the object hit. This process goes on not only in deep space, but in our upper atmosphere due to the impact of cosmic rays.

Cosmic ray spallation produces some light elements such as lithium and boron. This process was discovered somewhat by accident during the 1970s. Models of big bang nucleosynthesis suggested that the amount of deuterium was too large to be consistent with the expansion rate of the universe and there was therefore great interest in processes that could generate deuterium after the big bang.

Cosmic ray spallation was investigated as a possible process to generate deuterium. As it turned out, spallation could not generate much deuterium, and the excess deuterium in the universe could be explained by assuming the existence of non-baryonic dark matter. However, studies of spallation showed that it could generate lithium and boron. Isotopes of aluminum, beryllium, carbon(carbon-14), chlorine, iodine and neon, are also formed through cosmic ray spallation.



Talk about getting tongue tied, can you imagine, "these fluctuations can generate their own big bangs in tiny areas of the universe." Read on.


Photo credit: Lloyd DeGrane/University of Chicago News Office
Carroll and Chen’s scenario of infinite entropy is inspired by the finding in 1998 that the universe will expand forever because of a mysterious force called “dark energy.” Under these conditions, the natural configuration of the universe is one that is almost empty. “In our current universe, the entropy is growing and the universe is expanding and becoming emptier,” Carroll said.

But even empty space has faint traces of energy that fluctuate on the subatomic scale. As suggested previously by Jaume Garriga of Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, these fluctuations can generate their own big bangs in tiny areas of the universe, widely separated in time and space. Carroll and Chen extend this idea in dramatic fashion, suggesting that inflation could start “in reverse” in the distant past of our universe, so that time could appear to run backwards (from our perspective) to observers far in our past.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Graviton in a Can?

After you consume "graviton in a can," you might never be the same? Brane thinking may then dominate your every view of the world. Then, it will all make sense?

Imagine while we peer deeper into the subject of the "perfect fluid/soup" we find that certain aspects of the reductionist work done, has indeed lead us to speculate on how the "new physics" formed through the research and understanding currently being worked in the LHC?

Is there some architectural design to the "Degree's of Freedom?" Why anything more then the spacetime we have come to recognize, which placed new parameters on our thinking? Moved it from the recogition of Maxwellian and Gaussian coordinates to Riemann geometries in the theory of General Relativity, to become known, as the Theory of gravity. Why "anything" more then that?


A picture of flux lines in QED (left) and QCD (right).
Although it didn't properly describe strong interactions, in studying string theory physicists stumbled upon an amazing mathematical structure. String theory has turned out to be far richer than people originally anticipated. For example, people found that a certain vibrational state of the string has zero mass and spin 2. According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the gravitational force is mediated by a particle with zero mass and spin 2. So string theory is, among many other things, a theory of gravity!


I mean how are such abstract notions in the mathematics supposed to make sense, if we can not see the logic of these formulations working in some kind of reality frame of reference?


by Jacob D. Bekenstein
TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.


So we have these diagrams and thought processes developed from individuals like Jacob D. Bekenstein to help us visualize what is taking place. Gives us key indicators of the valuation needed, in order to determine what maths are going to be used? In this case the subject of Conformal Filed Theory makes itself known, for the thought process to hone in on what is going to be spoken too?

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondence between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinguish which description is more fundamental.Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking


So we are given the label in which to speak about the holographical ntions of what is being talked about in the case of the blackhole's horizon.


Campbell's Soup Can by Andy Warhol Exhibited in New York (USA), Leo Castelli Gallery


While it is difficult of such images to be found displayed in the bloggery here to show what Dr. Gary Horowitz is saying you get the jest when you go right to the image of the tomato soup can.

Spacetime in String Theory-Dr. Gary Horowitz, UCSB-Apr 20, 2005

This year marks the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's "miraculous year", 1905, when he formulated special relativity, and explained the origin of the black body spectrum and Brownian motion. In honor of this occasion, I will describe the modern view of spacetime. After reviewing the properties of spacetime in general relativity, I will provide an overview of the nature of spacetime emerging from string theory. This is radically different from relativity. At a perturbative level, the spacetime metric appears as ``coupling constants" in a two-dimensional quantum field theory. Nonperturbatively (with certain boundary conditions), spacetime is not fundamental but must be reconstructed from a holographic, dual theory. I will conclude with some recent ideas about the big bang arising from string theory.


Imagine containing everything we know in this can. Yet,we find that the "soup image" has somehow been translated to other factors and values that seem beyond what we know is real. Is real within the confines and boundaries, and is not evidence of the "infinities" that arise from such non containment?

So, what of the "dilation field" that accumulates, as we speak to what the photon is in the measure of Glast. High energy photon determinations that may also be the valuation of the graviton in expression, as the photon travels through these fields?

Such unification is important once we move into the bulk perspective and what we see of the 2d image of the brane, as a value, and discernation of the label of the soup can?


The ALICE TPC in its clean room, where it is undergoing commissioning of all its sectors.

One of the first cosmic-ray events recorded and reconstructed in two sectors of the TPC.
The tests use the ALICE cosmic muon trigger detector ACORDE, as well as a specially designed UV laser system, to produce tracks in the detector. Preliminary analysis of the cosmic-ray events and the laser-induced tracks indicate that the drift velocity and diffusion of electrons liberated by traversing charged particles, as well as the spatial resolution, are very close to the design values.


So here we are then, having graduated in perspective about what is real, as one may ask the sociological aspect of this whole adventure?



If such missing energy is, "not accounted for" then what happens to the graviton as it is produced and causes energy to travel with them?

For example, people found that a certain vibrational state of the string has zero mass and spin 2. According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the gravitational force is mediated by a particle with zero mass and spin 2. So string theory is, among many other things, a theory of gravity!

Thursday, October 12, 2006

George Gabriel Stokes

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

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

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


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



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

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

Again I am reminded of Einstein's quote here.

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


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


See:

  • Navier-Stokes equations
  • Friday, July 28, 2006

    Emergence: A Point in Spacetime

    We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding out that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'."
    - Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)



    Foundational perspectives are important to me, and are part and parcel of a larger frame of thinking that comes into materiality.



    What basis then leads such thinking, that something could manifest from another place and become the material reality with which we deal? I know this is about "what is in the now," yet such recognition of what is "chaotic and has complexity" now becomes an organizational pattern. What is "chaos theory?"

    From the untold many constituents in the bulk perspective, "Higgin's" has some new found ways in which he can express himself. He see's new ways of travel in the universe?

    What emergent properties would have such conditions and gatherings have on routing new universe from tunnelling found created within cosmological events? Which if reduced too, as QGP states of existance, would produce similar resulting anomalies encountered in superfluid state realities?

    Since he is beyond what we are accustom too of the Standard model, then what value does Higgin's play as he is born to the level with which he now embues all of creation. He is strong on "some points," then others?

    The Unfolding Universe



    There is but one kind of entropy change. Entropy change is due to energy dispersal to, from, or within a system (as a function of temperature.), measured by microstate change: S = kB ln [microstates final / microstates initial ].


    If you look to the arrow of time, and "the event from which it sprang," how did such strings become the basis of thinking along this road to what exists in the universe today? It has been assign "a place" in this segment of the time's growth within this universe, and we have been sent "back in time to the reductionsitic valuation" of what is seen in the colliders, to see what is emergent today. But what did they find at the beginning? What shall we find at "the beginning" of any universe?

    What effect did strings have on this evolution?

    The emergent universe

    The breathtaking quality of emergence lies in its broad applicability, from ants to people, and from electrons to galaxies. We assume that we can sing and dance together because we are intelligent and coordinate our behavior, and so it is surprising to see the coordinated chirping of crickets, and shocking to discover that the same principles apply to mindless things such as water molecules arranging themselves in a crystalline structure to form ice. When you get enough things together, and they interact in just the right way, they suddenly shift to coherent behavior. Emergent principles may govern the smallest units of matter, as in electrons humming together within a superconductor, to the largest, as when entire galaxies clump into regular patterns. Scientists across multiple fields have found that such systems don't require a central ringleader directing the way – their self-organization is inevitable, due to the local interactions of nearest neighbors.

    Emergence represents a revolutionary paradigm shift away from reductionism (the understanding of the world through understanding the component parts. Scientists working within the revolutionary paradigm of emergence study the organizing principles causing collective behavior across many disciplines.

    The EUP is focusing on the following types of emergent systems


    A point in space implies that such emergence into the spacetime co-ordiantes, have some "other dimensional relation" beyond what we are saying of 3+1? So of course I am enthralled by such an emergence and what could come into these spacetime coordinates.

    So the universe in it's unfolding has certain attributes in it's early phases that amount to the conditions Sean Carroll may sees of it? If this is the case, then that valuation of the universe, in it's unfolding is doing what? It's temperature?

    If you "wrap the whole of what this arrow of time is, in a geomtrical sense," then the strings and the time of the universe in "Sean's perspective" is inclusive?

    So how do we say such a crunch is to happen? How does such thinking become part of our reasoning, to say that the universe will collapase on itself, and become something new? Will it ever?

    Tegmark does not take to such "topological expressions of the universe," yet, if you look at the WMAP mapping of the universe what is it you see besides these points of expression, as some nodal and anti-nodal analogy to the cosmological events? Tunnels, through which we can travel? New energy, being distributed back into the universe, in the form of dark energy/matter?

    We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.


    If strangelets have been disproved then what "crazy thoughts" shall we now think of, in what constitutes the "new physics?" Tachyon condensation perhaps?

    What is the "false vaccuum" to the "true," when it is geometrically expressed? :)

    Tuesday, July 25, 2006

    Clifford and The Singularity

    Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole.


    See:

  • So how far back to the beginning, and if we had thought supersymmetry could exist, would it be in the most perfect fluid?

    I place this picture and article above so that one keeps perspective about the similarites of the "micro versus the macro" perspective and "not" that the "disaster scenario" could create the "large blackhole?" But wait?

    I am thinking in terms of what could create "the situations" for what is coming into being. Is it acummulative? I am not sure from the "many colldial events" that one could see happen? Hence my focus, to what not ony is created in the "collidal event," but to the cosmic particle colllsions as well. How rare are these? I speak on the "history of strangelets" from that point.

    Anyway onward here.

    Clifford:
    Seriously his talk is all about the physics of certain type of spacetime singularites-such as the one that live's in our universe's past-and whether life can make sense of the idea of space and time coming into being after sucha singualrity, while not existing prior to that


    I should start off from a quote of Clifford's of Cosmic Variance, becuase of Q's insistance in regards to the descritpions of singularities and my lacking an understanding and somewhat confusion. I thought I would do some more research here.

    There are "certain assumptions" I am making and this is in regard to the a statement Clifford makes, is held as a question in my mind of what exists before anything can emerge into the spacetime? While he has called this beginning "spacetime" and reference "another state" before this, what is it? This is what holds my assumption and idea about what the singularity is doing.

    Lubos Motl:
    We need to get closer to the "theory of everything", regardless of the question whether the destination is a finite or infinite distance away. (And yes, the path should not be infinitely long because there is no physics "below" the Planck length.)


    I place this, too support what Clifford is saying in regards to the what is emergent into the spacetime from what I understand(Strings as a building block on the road too, not as the source of this "emergent property?"). Where do all these dimensional ideas then reside? You can't ignore this, or what Lubos "is saying" about talking about the past? Everytime one's perception changes, the hisory changes too? It forces you to look at the future in a new way?

    Not Newtonian

    It is certainly not the Newtonian version I am thinking about. People tend to think of these as diamonds(?) or something like that as a Pea? I tend away from that thinking, because it just doesn't chive with what is tramsmitted into what "being [is] in spacetime?," if you don't have a foundation from which to work?

    Call them coordinates and in it, the spactime emerges, and from that "okay" the looking at the arrow of time which implies to me a simplier supersymmetrical idea, looking back. So how did you get there? The outside/inside "quandry that stretches the mind capbailites" while chasing the "idea" as Brian Greene's Koan?

    There is something to be said in how "ideas emerge from all the information gathered and accumulated" spontaneousily bursts into a new form? The mind goes through a bit of a change? See's differently. Reinmann accomplishement along with those of the geometrical forbears(shoulder's of giants) help to change how we see geometrics.

    Briefly I pick up the Kurzwelian book on singularities, and find that a greate rperspective is need beyond what is espoused. A new stage in the thinking, beyond what society is thought to be headed. Some reject Kuhnian thinking but this is revolutionary to bme in what an dhow th emind proceeds in bringing down to earh the ideas that await to form in mind. Another place perhaps? A way of dipping the "toe" into the stream, and letting all that "informtaion" flow through you?

    A black hole in astrophysics often has two distinct meanings. The first is the black hole in a general relativistic sense - the extreme gravitational case with a singularity in space-time - while the second is a simpler Newtonian approach: a black hole is just a point mass. While both of these meanings are used, often interchangeably, throughout the literature, it is important to remember that no astrophysical observation has yet been made that can distinguish between the two; to date, the Newtonian point mass is all we need. In the future, with better X-ray observations and a detection of gravitational waves, this may change.



    First off I wrote the post Singularities should be rewritten as "a question" of what I was seeing inregards to our universe. What is in our universe's past. The reason for it's inflation. The reason for entropic valuations that become complicated and end in some chaos reasoning that Sean askes of those to solve in the Three body solution? I think this ahas already been done from what I understood so that push me towards lagragian perspective s and the other assumptions I have about this beginning and what existed before it?

    Here's what I write:

    Plato:
    If the initial states at the beginning of the universe are to be in concert with particle reductionism, and the particle creations that I have exemplified in how particles came into being, then, the understanding of what can be transmitted through the blackhole is extremely important as a valuation of what appears over time?


    So I have to say yes I am quantum characteristically driven to see this universe as it existed in a state held in our perceptions, of what it has become today. So of course I was looking back, with new knowledge of what the futre is to become. Why shouldn't it matter what help to draive this situation in the universe we have to day not hold perspectove abot what has emerged in the spacrtime as we know it?

    Strominger:
    The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.
  • Sunday, July 16, 2006

    Star Lite Public Outreach



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



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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

    Ask a Astrophysicist

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

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


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

    What is Blackhole Entrophy?

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

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


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

    Who is Boltzman? What is Chaos?

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


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

    Monday, May 22, 2006

    Pattern Recognition

    Strominger:
    That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

    The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.




    I mean sure we can say to ourselves, "that one day I was very ignorant" and I had all these speculative ideas about the "Golden Ratio," but then, I learnt the math and the truth of it all?

    But while we were being crazy......?:) Ahem!

    Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion - Hindu Goddess of creativity. In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.


    In "past life bleed throughs," it was very important to realize that while speaking in context of "overlapping," the underlying archetecture allowed for expression of those different interpretive assignments I had given. These were significant for me, because it help me to realize the "mapping" that we can unconsciously have revealled in such "experience dream/real patterns," that had one not be aware it, would have escape one's notice as a mundane realization.

    You had to understand how "geometrical seeing" is held in context of Dirac's wording, to know that this tendency to draw lines at the basis of consciousness, was also evident in Feynman's toy model construction. It is something that we do, do.

    So what did I learn?

  • 1. That it revealled a model for consciousness, from the reality of the day, to the transcendant.


  • 2. That it housed an experience in the way it can overlapped using "1" as a central pattern of emergence.


  • 3. That present day models now use this schematic are psychologically endowed in speculation(liminocentrically structured), but has a basis in fact, as I am showing it here.


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

    What sense would any of this "cognitive idealization" make, if one did not have some model in which to present, and know, that it was the underlay of all experience, and that the time of our day, might see us use it in topologically in different ways?

    I used Sklar for this example.

    But more then this what use is "Pascal Triangle" if we did not understand the emergence of "patterned numbers" from some initial beginning and cognitive realization, had we not recognized Pascal's model intepretation?



    With no know emergent principals, or geometry arising from inside the blackhole, it was important that the basis of expression be realized as a pattern forming recognitive valuation? Is it right? I am not sure, but part of the developing model application had me wonder about how we could have encapsulated the cyclical nature of, what was collapsing into the singularity, was now actually, the motivational force for the developing new universe?

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


    So it was important to know the basis of D brane recognitive values, in how the blackhole is interpreted?

    Wednesday, March 22, 2006

    Coleman-De Luccia instanton

    IN what way could some consistent measure be thought of, that such conditions while recognized in the false vacuum, and, with conditions of high energy considerations, be realized into useful information surrounding this move to the true vacuum? It would have to be geometrically explained. Planck epoch in itself, makes this very hard to do, so you use the action of the vacuum, from false to true, to help in that realization.

    The volume of the haystack
    Lubos Motl:
    We don't have a real emotional intuition how "density" in a very-high-dimensional space should behave, but we should probably try to learn it. I feel that these (especially the de Sitter) vacua cannot be quite isolated. There are just many other vacua nearby (virtually all of them) into which one should be able to decay. KKLT only consider one Coleman-DeLuccia instanton, without an enhancement, and I feel it can't be the whole story


    The Coleman-De Luccia instanton presents opportunities, or, is the paper countering this proposal? See link below for reference to paper.

    I think one needed to understand this movement or how the false vacuum is understood, and how the true vacuum is created.

    A geometical smoothly flowing understanding that arose out of "nothing!" Without some geometrical consistancy, this idea isn't going to go away, unless someone has a reason why, and if, that paper deals with it directly?

    I remain non-judgemental about characters, and the nature people adopt. I only focus on those issues that would offer us some further ideas to exploit. To help us all push pespectve forward. While there is a facade in what the mind accumulates as the image of who we are, there is "kernels of truth" that we must seek to reference, so the knowledge base can increase, and intuitve leaps for the taking by who ever push persepctove add experimetal basis as a concluding result.

    We'll leave the dance and facades for other to design themself. We always want them to be "whole" with what ever they have accepted in life.

    Peter Woit recommends supersymmetry

    Lubos Motl:
    At any rate, quantum black holes do carry quantum information, the relevant entropy is, at least in some cases, attributable to the entanglement entropy, and the research of quantum entanglement in this context could turn out to be very fruitful which is why many of us should look at these "coincidences" more carefully. They may very well clarify the origin and mathematical details of the black hole complementarity


    The circumstance around the nature of the state where such superfluids are created, needed some method in which to move, from "one state into another"(turned inside/out)?

    If you hold the nature of the bubble universe and it's formation in mind, it does not seem so unlikely that you had the klein bottle, as some geometrical basis from which the false vacuum would direct itself into inflationary results?

    So is the paper discounting the basis of the views of Coleman-De Luccia instanton?

    The idea behind the Coleman-De Luccia instanton, discovered in 1987, is that the matter in the early universe is initially in a state known as a false vacuum. A false vacuum is a classically stable excited state which is quantum mechanically unstable. In the quantum theory, matter which is in a false vacuum may `tunnel' to its true vacuum state. The quantum tunnelling of the matter in the early universe was described by Coleman and De Luccia. They showed that false vacuum decay proceeds via the nucleation of bubbles in the false vacuum. Inside each bubble the matter has tunnelled. Surprisingly, the interior of such a bubble is an infinite open universe in which inflation may occur. The cosmological instanton describing the creation of an open universe via this bubble nucleation is known as a Coleman-De Luccia instanton.


    Okay so we are talking about cosmological proportions here, in blackhole creation and the resulting standard model and interactions developed from the origins of this universe. Is it consistent all the way down to the planck epoch, and how would the planck epoch be described?

    One would need to see the geometrical basis of what is hapening from one state to the next. Our universe into some other new expression, or blackhole states, that rejuvenize, using geometrical dynamics of what is already existing?

    Would this run contrary to the arrow of time, by having such states within context of the whole universe? Would this not explain the susutenance need to keep the universe in the same state for a very long long time?

    Backreaction

    Do a search, under the heading of "backreaction in laval nozzle," for further references.

    Black Holes and Analogues in Two Dimensions

    Examples: acoustics in a moving fluid (“dumbholes”), BEC, Helium, slow light,


    See:

  • Why Higher Energies
  • Monday, March 20, 2006

    Ways IN which To Percieve Landscape?

    What a Cosmologist Wants from a String Theorist?




    Emotion versus Reason?

    3.1 As Cytowic notes, Plato and Socrates viewed emotion and reason as in a kind of struggle, one in which it was vitally important for reason to win out. Aristotle took a more moderate view, that both emotion and reason are integral parts of a complex human soul--a theory proposed by Aristotle in explicit opposition to Platonism (De Anima 414a 19ff). Cytowic appears to endorse the Platonic line, with the notable difference that he would apparently rather have emotion win out.


    Emotion can be used as a catelysct into higher abstractual/dimensional thinking, if, it can be used to counter research into?:)

    Figure 2. Clebsch's Diagonal Surface: Wonderful.

    Mein Gott. :) If seeing on distance scales, had relevances in regards to "all the issues" of the standard model, would this not in effect change the way we see in those distances?

    Peter Woit:I’ve looked very carefully in landscape papers and Susskind’s book for any sort of plausible idea about how this stuff will ever lead to a prediction of anything and I can’t find it.

    Thanks Peter, that's it?


    The Hills are Alive with the Sound of M theory?



    With the discovery of sound waves in the CMB, we have entered a new era of precision cosmology in which we can begin to talk with certainty about the origin of structure and the content of matter and energy in the universeWayne Hu


    By exercising the imagination I thought Wayne Hu did a fine job of relating these things on a "cosmological scale." Hills and Valleys. But in a more detailed quantum look, what value, conformal field theory of point particles?

    In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.


    Les Houches




    ROBBERT DIJKGRAAF:Map of the world, as used in my Les Houches lectures

    I like this picture better Clifford. Is the landscape, as barren, or is it, the hope that we see such beautiful things of which the seed bed wil allow such things to arise from it?

    For some, the "creative" outlet? Maybe, a Shangri-la high" in the mountains of abstractual thinking?

    IN the Wunderkammern

    James Joseph Sylvester (September 3, 1814 - March 15, 1897) was an English mathematician and lawyer.


    We are told that "mathematics is that study which knows nothing of observation..." I think no statement could have been more opposite to the undoubted facts of the case; that mathematical analysis is constantly invoking the aid of new principles, new ideas and new methods, not capable of being defined by any form of words, but springing direct from the inherent powers and activity of the human mind, and from continually renewed introspection of that inner world of thought of which the phenomena are as varied and require as close attention to discern as those of the outer physical world, ...that it is unceasingly calling forth the faculties of observation and comparison, that one of its principal weapons is induction, that it has frequent recourse to experimental trial and verification, and that it affords a boundless scope for the exercise of the highest efforts of imagination and invention. ...Were it not unbecoming to dilate on one's personal experience, I could tell a story of almost romantic interest about my own latest researches in a field where Geometry, Algebra, and the Theory of Numbers melt in a surprising manner into one another.


    While I always point upward in Rapheal's painting, I mention often, the "One thing."

    Gold or wisdom, while leadng "the alchemist" in the search of that elucive material, mining, has to note the glimmer's as a sun shines on the landscape of ideas. So you work it, use a sluicebox, or a gold pan. Watch how river flow's and the bends in it. Where some deposits might have laid themself while others are carried off further down stream, left to some "eddie" or "pool of thinking." See flowers emerge in rocks crevices of all places.

    However, don't be fooled! The charm of the golden number tends to attract kooks and the gullible - hence the term "fool's gold". You have to be careful about anything you read about this number. In particular, if you think ancient Greeks ran around in togas philosophizing about the "golden ratio" and calling it "Phi", you're wrong. This number was named Phi after Phidias only in 1914, in a book called _The Curves of Life_ by the artist Theodore Cook. And, it was Cook who first started calling 1.618...the golden ratio. Before him, 0.618... was called the golden ratio! Cook dubbed this number "phi", the lower-case baby brother of Phi.


    See:

  • Fool's Gold

  • The Alchemist in You

  • String Theory Displays Golden Ratio Tendency
  • Monday, February 13, 2006

    Intersection of D Branes

    I'm not going to try and kid you with "this stuff," as it is extremely beyond anything that any of us mere mortal can understand. So, if such a thought would be to simplify, then how would such thinking be attributed to such model building and make it easier for us lay people to comprehend where these people are working in terms of the way they do things.

    What is important is that we can derive some method to this madness:) okay! rather this abstract thinking, to show some kind of similarity in lay people's current thought patterns for easy recognition.

    I'll burn in hell, if I get this wrong, but surely from my "faulty trails (not Tower)" I can be forgiven, until a clearer picture is given to us, that I could revamp all that I said, and leave for you now, the trials and tibulation of a rogue what?:)

    Now you have to think about what I am saying, if you understand indeed, that such a place exists in the picture below, which for us mortals to consider. Think for a minute about the blackhole and where I had been talking in relation to the collider, as well as, the cosmic collisions taking place, with higher energy particles in our own atmosphere.

    Weak field manifestation has particle consideration evident, and we find these here on earth, as neutrinos. Do You see now?

    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.


    I thought this to be part of the trivial effort with which I had departed to the bulk perspective, without really undertanding how I had got there. Yet I do see in these ways and many things are encompassed within it(gravitonic concentration). I would say, like Clifford telling us about the proper way in which we should move within these mathematical environs, then I would say what a rogue scholar I make, becuase this seems be the bastard child I am whose school is by insight developement, and some of it, wrong of course. But I try.

    Superstrings, black holes and gauge theories


    D-branes are non-perturbative excitations of string theory on which open strings can end. Open strings have gauge fields, so the D-branes define a gauge theory. There is a class of black hole made of D-branes, and these have a quantum gauge theory description. The closed strings define a field theory of gravity.



    PROSPECTS FROM STRINGS AND BRANESA.SEVRIN

    Strings occur in two versions: closed and open strings. Roughly speaking, one has that closed strings carry the gravitational interaction and the open strings carry the gauge interactions. While closed strings can freely propagate in space, the modern point of view is that the end points of open strings are “stuck” on p-dimensional hypersurfaces, where p ∈ {1, 2, · · · , 9}. These hypersurfaces are known as Dp-branes. They are dynamical but they are extremely heavy in the perturbative regime of string theory (their tension or energy per unit of volume is inversely proportional to the string coupling constant): they are solitons. A D0-brane is a point-like object, a D1-brane a string-like object, a D2-brane a membrane, ... Just as a propagating point particle sweeps out a curve – the world-line – in space-time, a Dp-brane sweeps out a p + 1-dimensional volume – the world-volume – in the 10-dimensional space-time. The effective dynamics on the world-volume is then described by a p + 1-dimensional field theory.





    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


    The link below contains over 222 pages, so if you are on Dial-up, you have to think twice about clicking on it. Another of Cosmic Variance's very own.


    D-Brane PrimerClifford V. Johnson
    Following is a collection of lecture notes on D-branes, which may be used by the reader as preparation for applications to modern research applications such as: the AdS/CFT and other gauge theory/geometry correspondences, Matrix Theory and stringy non-commutative geometry, etc. In attempting to be reasonably self-contained, the notes start from classical point-particles and develop the subject logically (but selectively) through classical strings, quantisation, D-branes, supergravity, superstrings, string duality, including many detailed applications. Selected focus topics feature D-branes as probes of both spacetime and gauge geometry, highlighting the role of world-volume curvature and gauge couplings, with some non-Abelian cases. Other advanced topics which are discussed are the (presently) novel tools of research such as fractional branes, the enhancon mechanism, D(ielectric)-branes and the emergence of the fuzzy/non-commutative sphere.

    Friday, January 06, 2006

    The Blackhole as a Superfluid: It's Viscosity

    Now you must understand that thinking of any first principle is hard to refrain from, especially, if one had thought like I do, that the geometrical tendencies are inherent in the way this is handled, and that it leads to other things? "The equations of relativity fail, and new laws emerge." saids George Musser. " A quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured."

    That's important, is it not from a geometrical perspective, because from this Dirac's visionary quest might have said, that here lies the opportunity for such a notion to begin, hyperbolically, or spherically. One way, or the other??

    Blackhole substances are perhaps the most-perfect fluids in existence because they have ultra-low viscosity.
    No matter what you call it, though, that substance and others similar to it could be the most-perfect fluids in existence because they have ultra-low viscosity, or resistance to flow, said Dam Thanh Son, an associate physics professor in the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington.

    Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.


    Lubos Motl:
    The quark picture is more ordinary and materialistic but the black hole picture with an extra dimension is actually more useful to understand some general laws, such as the bounds on viscosity.


    The problem might have been missed, with what one might, or should have look at? Herein the condense matter specialist might have thought hey, a superfluid indeed, and we have created a blackhole of a kind? What is this Bound Viscosity?

    Sungho Hong on December 6, 2003 :
    There is an interesting proposal by Andreas Karch. With certain assumtions, he showed that the entropy bound implies the viscosity bound. Moreover, this relation seems true even beyond the assumptions that he made. An interesting point is that the tabletop experiments could test this. The viscosity of superfluid He4 misses the bound only by a factor of 10.


    Thse ideas that begin to manifest, have been from venturing into ideas of expeirmentation. What had arisen from blackholes in our colliders?

    Frozen Stars
    Black holes may not be bottomless pits after all
    By George Musser July 2003

    Under the right conditions, a fluid can turn into a superfluid, governed by quantum mechanics even on macroscopic scales. Chapline, along with physicists Evan Hohlfeld, Robert B. Laughlin and David I. Santiago of Stanford University, has proposed that a similar process happens at event horizons. The equations of relativity fail, and new laws emerge. "If one thinks of spacetime as a superfluid, then it is very natural that in fact something physical does happen at the event horizon--that is, the classical event horizon is replaced by a quantum phase transition," Chapline says.


    So you don't lose sleep, or the world is a nice place, la te da... because it is what it is?:) It's just a generalization, as any assumption of the data might have convinced one, either way? What is it's value?

    One might have assume because of the time involved, that accumulation and gatherings, might have taken up residence at the center of the earth. So? Okay? :)