Pages

Showing posts with label Gluon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gluon. Show all posts

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Collider Detector at Fermilab and Slac

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


If for one moment you thought strings had some relation to the very nature as "building blocks of this universe," at what "energies" would we have said they had made their appearance? Microseconds perhaps after the universe came into expression?

The CDF Detector. Image from Fermilab

Three trillion times per second--that's how fast quarks in the B sub s (Bs) particle "oscillate," or switch between their matter and antimatter states, according to scientists from the Collider Detector at Fermilab collaboration. The CDF physicists measured this rapid oscillation with the help of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, Fermilab’s Tevatron, unprecedented computing power made available through the Open Science Grid and the LHC Computing Grid, and a healthy dose of ingenuity.

"Bs oscillation is a very subtle and rapid effect," says Jacobo Konigsberg from the University of Florida, co-spokesperson for the CDF collaboration. "It's astonishing that we can measure it at all."


When you look at these events, the cascading effect of this interaction with the earth's upper atmosphere, why did not one think of the constituent properties that would be exhibited at the beginning of that same universe?

Multi-Jet Hadronic Events


Event 12637_6353_600_z_3jet

In some hadronic events, the initial high-energy quark and or antiquark pair may radiate a high-energy gluon before the production of additional quarks and antiquarks in the strong force field is completed. These gluons also show up in the event picture, because they provide a different pattern. The momentum of each high-energy gluon appears as an additional jet of hadrons. This process results in three, four, or even five jet events. Sometimes though, as these pictures show, it is very clear to see.


I do not understand why people did not understand this relation to what was happening within the cosmos, would not be produced in our colliders? That what was happening at the beginning of our universe had some relation to what was being produced in those colliders?

Cosmic Rays


Cosmic rays are caused by protons from outer space. When a proton (shown in yellow) hits the air in the earth's upper atmosphere it produces many particles. Most of these decay or are absorbed in the atmosphere. One type of particle, called muons (shown in red), lives long enough that some reach the earth's surface.

SLAC's Cosmic Ray Detector: The Cosmic Ray Detector consists of three pairs of scintillator panels for muon detection. Sets A, B, and C (see below) are oriented with the flat surface of the panels horizontally, at 45°, and vertically, respectively. In each pair, the panels measure 4.875 inches (12.4 cm) wide by 8 inches (20.3 cm) long, and the distance between them is 18.5 inches (47.0 cm). The panels are shielded from light with aluminum foil, black plastic sheets, and black tape. When muons penetrate through these panels, chemicals within will scintillate (emit flashes of light).

Friday, October 27, 2006

Probing the Perfect Liquid

If you learn to understand the relationship between QGP and the physics underlying hydrodynamic flows then what leads one to believe that the blackholes cannot also create the circumstances, for the process you may observe in the cosmos, "is" directly related to the effects of the "relativistic nature" of flows?

There is no further need from this point to refer to the big bang as a collision process. Focus on the energy and how cosmologically the QGP was gotten too, in a cosmological sense.

And that out of such issuances, "new particle creations" are ignited in possible new universes/physics?

While some like chocolate bars and the bubble nature of candy, some also like the molasses and ice cream? :)

Our work is about comparing the data we collect in the STAR detector with modern calculations, so that we can write down equations on paper that exactly describe how the quark-gluon plasma behaves," says Jerome Lauret from Brookhaven National Laboratory. "One of the most important assumptions we've made is that, for very intense collisions, the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to hydrodynamic calculations in which the matter is like a liquid that flows with no viscosity whatsoever."

Proving that under certain conditions the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to such calculations is an exciting discovery for physicists, as it brings them a little closer to understanding how matter behaves at very small scales. But the challenge remains to determine the properties of the plasma under other conditions.

"We want to measure when the quark-gluon plasma behaves like a perfect fluid with zero viscosity, and when it doesn't," says Lauret. "When it doesn't match our calculations, what parameters do we have to change? If we can put everything together, we might have a model that reproduces everything we see in our detector."


See:










Sunday, October 15, 2006

Part of Facing the Trouble With Physics

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics. Richard Feynman


Faced with the task of showing the connection between string theory and reductionistic consideration is quite a task, as I am sure in most eyes? To me it just seems that everytime we adjust our view and include new views, what shall we say of "gamma ray detection" when we look at high energy photons describing the early universe for us?



Hey, it makes my heart jump too.

Here is a case, with which I like to make my point. Having someone corrected makes it that much better now to make comparisons like I do. The simple point of "order" enlightened greatly the situation for us, in what I am exemplifying here. We wil not forget the paper offered up after, in that comment thread either. Thanks

A realization 1; 2; 3 that QGP at RHIC is not a weakly coupled gas but rather a strongly coupled liquid has lead to a paradigm shift in the field. It was extensively debated at the “discovery” BNL workshop in 2004 4 (at which the abbreviation sQGP was established) and multiple other meetings since.

In the intervening three years we had to learn a lot, some new some from other ranches of physics which happened to have some experience with strongly coupled systems. Those range from quantum gases to classical plasmas to string theory. In short, there seem to be not one but actually two difficult issues we are facing. One is to understand why QGP at T ∼ 2Tc is strongly coupled, and what exactly it means.


In Extracting Beauty From Chaos I am recognizing this depth of perception enhancement that is supplied by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance. Would you rather look at "Seans moon" in gamma?

CERN planned a global-warming experiment in 1998?

Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.



What shall I say to you as SNO investigated the "cerenkov effect" from the cosmos ray particle collisions? Shall I speak about the "weather predictions" that arise. This is a interference and a "weak measure" of what is fast becoming the thought in my mind of the diversity of global painting, to include, that blue light as each of the detectors "pick" the overall pattern of high energy exchanges in the detectors as inherent image understanding. It has been transcribed from the "sun's energy value" and applied to high energy considerations?

"Atmospheric" neutrinos, produced by interactions of cosmic ray particles with the earth's atmosphere, might be useful for studying the properties of neutrinos. But if you're hunting sources of neutrinos in the universe, atmospheric neutrinos are nothing but noise.



Now, I may reference Glast indications here in the experimental validation of those high energy photons, gamma ray indication is a wonderful jesture to extending the depth of perception, as I have tried to do here by helping Q see the relevance of the quantum dynamical perception. From ,the beginning of this universe.

So we see where the " Window of the universe" has helped me to see in ways that we were not accustomed. It is "the physics" that has taken us there.

So, while the picture of JoAnnes is highlighted, the lesser of the views is the "gamma ray detection" while I have pointed to the neutrino here in experimentation.

Should we loose sight of what the KK tower exemplifies?



I am sorry about the "dead link picture to topology" but blogger does not go back to 2004 so that I can adjust it.

Now why would I then reference "quantum gravity" behind the picture of the KK tower, and the information about topology? Possibly, that we have for the first time thought here that the Navier-Stokes equations could have been applied at a fundamental level while thinking of what the QGP has given us, as we witness "cerenkov radiation" from a long line of reductionistic reasoning? Is this worth a million from the Clay Instituted by generalization alone?:)

If not, at least, if held in line with lagrangian views of gravitonic perceptions in the bulk as we phyically see the relation between the sun and earth?

It is thus my mind has been held to the idea of the "conical flows[Volcanos, to jet engines in analogy of the laval nozzle]" as the energy is released for the dissemmination from the collider of nature enhanced, to all that follows from the cosmic particle interactions. Right to the neutrinos resulting from the fluidity of the QGP pertaining to viscosity?

What was not present before? Muon detectors hmmmm..... and the road from muon neutrinos too?? What am I missing here?

The muons are stopped by the rock. Impervious to all such obstacles, the muon neutrinos will leave the CERN tunnels and streak through the rock on their 732 kilometre journey to Italy.


Hold that picture of JoAnnes, while you think of Glast. In the determinates of the gamma ray detection, we have therefor faced the "Trouble with Physics?":)

Saturday, October 14, 2006

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


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



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

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

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



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

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


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

So bear with me if you can.


Hi Plato,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best, stefan



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

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

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

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

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here's the thing.

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

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

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

But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

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


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

So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

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

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

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

See:

  • Strangelets Do Not Exist?
  • The Fate of our Planet?
  • Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006
  • Saturday, August 26, 2006

    Beyond Spacetime?

    As well as bringing the accelerator's counter-rotating beams together, LHC insertion magnets also have to separate them after collision. This is the job of dedicated separators, and the US Brookhaven Laboratory is developing superconducting magnets for this purpose. Brookhaven is drawing on its experience of building the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which like the LHC is a superconducting machine. Consequently, these magnets will bear a close resemblance to RHIC's main dipoles. Following a prototyping phase, full-scale manufacture has started at Brookhaven and delivery of the first superconducting separator magnets to CERN is foreseen before the end of the year.





    Now some people do not like "alternate views" when looking at Sean's picture. But if you look at it, then look at the picture below, what saneness, sameness, could have affected such thinking?

    Lisa Randall:
    "You think gravity is what you see. We're always just looking at the tail of things."





    So we look for computerized versions to help enlighten. To "see" how the wave front actually embues circumstances and transfers gravitonic perception into other situations.



    Was this possible without understanding the context of the pictures shared? What complexity and variable sallows us to construct such modellings in computers?



    Okay so you know now that lisa Randall's picture was thrown inhere to hopefully help uyou see what I am saying about gravitonic consideration.

    Anything beyond the spacetime we know, exists in dimensional perspectives, and the resulting "condensative feature" of this realization is "3d+1time." The gravitonic perception is "out there?" :)

    Attributes of the Superfluids

    Now it is with some understanding that the "greater energy needed" with which to impart our views on let's say "reductionism" has pointed us in the direction of the early universe.

    So we say "QGP" and might say, "hey, is there such a way to measure such perspectives?" So I am using the graph, to point you in the right direction.



    So we talk about where these beginnings are, and the "idea of blackholes" makes their way into our view because of th reductionistic standpoint we encountered in our philosophical ramblings to include now, "conditions" that were conducive to microstate blackhole creation.

    The energy here is beyond the "collidial aspects" we encounter, yet, we have safely move our perceptions forward to the QGP? We have encounter certain results. You have to Quantum dynamically understand it, in a macro way? See we still talk about the universe, yet froma microscopic perception.

    Let's move on here, as I have.

    If you feel it too uncomfortable and the "expanse of space quantumly not stimulating" it's okay to hold on to the railings like I do, as I walked close to the "edge of the grand canyon."

    So here we are.

    I gave some ideas as to the "attributes of the superfluids" and the history in the opening paragraph, to help perspective deal with where that "extra energy has gone" and how? So you look for new physics "beyond" the current understanding of the standard model.

    So, it was appropriate to include the graviton as a force carrier? Qui! NOn?

    Thursday, July 27, 2006

    Alice and the Cosmic Ballet, Now Meet Higgins

    As Alice learned, it's not always clear what's a looking glass, and what's a window to another world. Mirrors and windows are often interchangeable: we look out into the world, and see ourselves reflected back. We look at a reflection, and believe it's showing us a world beyond. We internalize the mirror image and project the one inside. Objects, actions and ideas can become so confused with their reflections that it's impossible to untangle them. What's phantom and what's real? Is there even a relevant difference?





    I am always taken back to Thomas Young's experiments and where the photon has travelled, while we see the resulting evidence of it's travel on the screen.

    Welcome to the mirror world, in which every particle in the known universe could have a counterpart. This cosmos would hold mirror planets, mirror stars, and even mirror life.


    Have they found more dramatic ways in which to see these travels? Most certainly? Were these methods steep in metaphysical ways in which the mind saw fit to think that indeed there were other worlds?

    Developed by Feynman to decribe the interactions in quantum electrodynamics (QED), the diagrams have found use in describing a variety of particle interactions. They are spacetime diagrams, ct vs x. The time axis points upward and the space axis to the right. (Particle physicists often reverse that orientation.) Particles are represented by lines with arrows to denote the direction of their travel, with antiparticles having their arrows reversed. Virtual particles are represented by wavy or broken lines and have no arrows. All electromagnetic interactions can be described with combinations of primitive diagrams like this one


    Before, we were tantalized with fictional stores about "other worlds" and the fiction of Lewis Carroll. INsanely driven, by such fictions, there were concerted efforts to experimentally challenge what the little photon was doing. Thus forward, the little photon became known as Alice in experiment?

    Fast forward now, and with all this new experimental knowledge of science that we are now governed by the principles of what happens at the time of such creations, that the "spectrum" becomes the basis for what happens at any beginning? The journey "through" identifying "particulars of materials," as we now know their signatures.

    In its quest for the quark-gluon plasma, a state of matter that is believed to have existed just after the Big Bang, ALICE will use a very accurate tracker system. The major part of this system is the time projection chamber (TPC), wherein the trajectories of electrically charged particles are reconstructed and their identity is determined. The ALICE TPC, a cylinder of 5 metres in diameter and 5 metres in length, is the largest of its kind worldwide. Nearly completed, it now has all read-out chambers installed with the custom electronics complete for the approximately 560000 read-out channels.

    Did you know?

    In a time projection chamber (TPC), an electric field is applied across a large volume of gas. When a charged particle traverses the TPC, it ionizes the gas and the liberated electrons drift in the electrical field to the endplates. The position on the endplate gives two coordinates. The third is given by the time of arrival of the electrons- hence the name of time projection chamber.


    Thus what sense if one can not be taken to the level of supersymmetry where the superfluid provides for a channel/tunnel through which "unaccountable energy is lost" as well as engage the wonder "similarily" as we looked early on at what the photon was doing?

    So there is this relationship to the energy, as we look at "point sources" and what GR encompasses not only from a cosmological standpoint, but from how we see the events wrapped in the wonders of the message Higgins will give us about the nature of such gatherings? So "Higgins" resides on the outside/inside of the balloon?

    We know that the graviton is not held to "such events" as Alice is? We know Higgins travels beyond the standard model, beyond 3+1 in ideas about a Professor crossing the room?

    I would like you to meet "Higgins" the graviton. :)

    The search for supersymmetry, or other physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) is becoming ever more tantalizing. The idea that the SM is theoretically incomplete is an old one. There is now a whole range of innovative and experimentally striking suggestions for this new physics that underlies the SM. A recent conference at CERN, Supersymmetry 2000, surveyed the scene.

    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?

    Thursday, July 13, 2006

    GRand Quantum Conjecture



    My continued looked into the "fluids dynamics" had me wonder about the superfluid anomalies. How would the "sphere look" if it collapsed and allowed information to travel through it, based on what has been given here for perspective, when the "state of equillibrum" is arrived at?

    In regards to 3, let's just say the assumption is from a theoretcial standpoint, that microstate blackholes "are created." They are created in "cosmic particle collisions" as well?

    This is the premise from which I work, and how I gave "how particles are created," a beginning(dimensional referencing), and a basis from which all science becomes "evidentary" in the particle creations.

    Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluidVince Stricherz, 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.

    It is easy to see the difference in viscosity between a jar of honey or molasses at room temperature and a glass of water. The honey is much thicker and more viscous, and it pours very slowly compared with the water.

    Using string theory as a measuring tool, Son and colleagues Pavlo Kovtun of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Starinets of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, have found that water is 400 times more viscous than black hole fluid having the same number of particles per cubic inch.


    Your points in conclusion,I, II, III

    I-yes
    II-yes
    III- from my conclusions as well.

    Again in above quote, I am defining the leading perspective on blackholes as they are being theoretically defined now, and will be subject to experimentation soon?:)

    Now again "backreaction in the laval nozzle" is up for inspection here as we delve deeper into the nature of the blackhole.

    Nature in Analog Models

    Analogue models of (and for) gravity have a long and distinguished history dating back to the earliest years of general relativity. In this review article we will discuss the history, aims, results, and future prospects for the various analogue models. We start the discussion by presenting a particularly simple example of an analogue model, before exploring the rich history and complex tapestry of models discussed in the literature. The last decade in particular has seen a remarkable and sustained development of analogue gravity ideas, leading to some hundreds of published articles, a workshop, two books, and this review article. Future prospects for the analogue gravity programme also look promising, both on the experimental front (where technology is rapidly advancing) and on the theoretical front (where variants of analogue models can be used as a springboard for radical attacks on the problem of quantum gravity).


    "Analogistical behaviors" help to push perspective, where before, our theoretical explorations had ran dry?

    Q:
    These wormhole like 'blackholes' do not lead to other pocket universes, unless we choose to call another sector of space a pocket universe, like Europeans first called the land across the Atlantic the 'New World' or Australia 'Another World' yet still clearly part of this World we call Planet Earth.


    If we are to think that the overall context can be apllied to this universe, then such evidence "should be obtainable" as to the nature of such a beginning? But even still, to your point and aspect within this universe, we are looking for accontable methods to such dark energy creation?

    Plato:
    Every picture held in mind is a link to other pictures


    Each event in regards to gravitational collapse would be indicative of what can be "put back into this universe" and sustain it?

    Lubos Motl:
    The mechanism behind sonoluminiscence remains a bit controversial. Claiming that a thermonuclear fusion occurs during sonoluminiscence is among the more conservative explanations. The physicist Claudia Eberlein argued that the correct explanation is that the imploding bubbles create sonic black holes and the flashes are the counterpart of Hawking radiation as the sonic black hole evaporates. You should not think that this is an example of a very, very low energy quantum gravity because the sonic black holes have no connection with the scales of gravity. It is not a supercollider in a glass of beer. But let me admit that as an undergrad, I was excited by this proposal, at least for a few minutes, but I apparently forgot the details of that encounter.


    So by developing this picture of the "bubble collapse in sonofusion", and let's forget about the energy produced from such bubbles and focus on the geometrics of such a collapse. That's my point.

    Lubos Motl:
    Janice Granhardt has pointed out a press release that is two days old and arguably much more serious and potentially far-reaching than the news about "sonofusion" we described yesterday.


    That is part of my conjecture as well as the "unification factor" in my GRand Quantum perceptions.:)That if you remember Kip thorne's plate 27 you will understand that information from the collapse had to be sent over a great distance for us to make sense of the geometrical dynamics that are unfolding from that time and place.

    So you look for the gravitational waves that Webber initiated, and Kip Thorne encouraged in our measures of what is actually being transmitted. Kip Thorne is the father of the LIGO program?

    You must remember gravitational waves have not yet been verified, yet the theory of GR implicitly tells and is about gravity. It was thus taken further in my conclusions having understood that the creation of this infomration would allow one someday "to map" this very collapse in terms of the gravitonic information left in the bulk?

    This is "Dimensional orientated" from a beginning(11dimensional view?), from which evidence is "the 3+1."

    That's outside the box thinking? :)Cosmologists work "inside," as Clifford of Cosmic Variance once said?

    How then is such a gravitational heat generated from the boundary conditions(blackhole), which grows ever smaller in that collapse, and our energy valuations go higher to supersymmetical realizations? The present volume calculated in the extension of our universe would have to be in concert with the volume before such a collapse was to be expected?

    This "total energy value," assuming the universe is flat teeter's on the brink of ?:)

    Total dark energy would have to account for this and supernova events contributing as well as, particle collisions that go on all the time?

    So if space is not really empty, then what is it supposed to be filled with? Quantum harmonic oscillator and zeropoint?

    See:
  • Charlatan's Who Use Graviton
  • Tuesday, July 11, 2006

    Singularities must be Rewritten?

    From Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01 On Relativity-Plate 24

    I have given examples why the singularities have to be rewritten. I explain the value of the KK Tower as well. As well, it's relationship to curvature of the universe. Following through that discussion I hope I reveal the thinkng that has been garnered through my own research and understanding.

    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 we have this universe and the temperature of the WMAP and the cosmic background?

    You have to know what the entropic realizations say about this time(now), as well as what is gravitationally being exemplified at this junction of the universe in terms of geometrical curves.

    Are the expansitory revelations being realized as I relate entropic and temperature valuation to the existing universe? What about the beginning then, and our supersymmetical realization?

    It was much simplier then?:)

    So looking for similarites in expression ask that "lagrangian methods" be established in terms of how the "weak field measure" in context of the Sun/earth relation, also speaks too, what is transmitted in the high energy collisions "outflows" as well?

    Image and text from NASA Solar System

    The Quark Gluon Plasma revealled the anomalies for us to consider the "jet outflow" of all that is being propelled back into this universe? Much like this image that is being reproduced. The beginning has then been established in my point of view:)

    Particle creation helps to exemplified this position.

    You would have to understand this geometrical progression as well?

    If you seat yourself in the terms of high energy considerations, how shall this geometry be expressed? Topological undertanding would need to be examined as you progressed to the basis of the singularity with the way I am seeing. The way I am directing one's view to that singularity in terms of the Quark Gluon Plasma.

    High energy photon recognition helps us in this regard as well?

    Tuesday, July 04, 2006

    When Is a House A Home?

    This phrase up top of this blog entry is catchy is it not?

    Starring: Kevin Kline, Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christensen, Jena Malone, Mary Steenburgen, Mike Weinberg, Scotty Leavenworth, Ian Somerhalder, Jamey Sheridan, Scott Bakula, Sandra Nelson, Sam Robards, John Pankow, Kim Delgado, Barry Primus Director: Irwin Winkler

    The fact that the "ole fabric" of our thinking can be torn down and rebuilt in a better format, after much careful thought and considerationCan it not be worthy of what you can put back into what you want your house to be?

    It is as though this has to be put out there for minds to consider? Like all possibilties, the diversities of the home in which we all live, is as unique as it is to the very life that is lead through the living of it.

    When you go back to the homes in where you grew up, how is your perception against what you will see that day? It seems, it was always bigger then what I had expected it to be. Time changes this. "Time," puts it back into perspective?

    So what is home for one, might be different in the way the one would interpret a house. Would be vastly different in how this house will be the measure of all homes? Will be the measure of "what home is," in life?

    In his novel Ulysses, James Joyce includes a lengthy discussion about Hamlet, referring to it as one of a select few important artworks that outshine the rest.

    "Art has to reveal to us ideas, formless spiritual essences. The supreme question about a work of art is out of how deep a life does it spring? The painting of Gustave Moreau is painting of ideas, the deepest poetry of Shelley, the words of Hamlet bring our mind into contact with the eternal wisdom, Plato's world of ideas. All the rest is the speculation of schoolboys for schoolboys."


    To be, or Not to Becomes from, "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark"

    To be or not to be, that is the question:
    Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them. To die: to sleep;
    No more; and by a sleep to say we end
    The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
    That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
    Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
    To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
    For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
    When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
    Must give us pause: there's the respect
    That makes calamity of so long life;
    For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
    The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
    The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
    The insolence of office and the spurns
    That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
    When he himself might his quietus make
    With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
    To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
    But that the dread of something after death,
    The undiscover'd country from whose bourn(e)
    No traveller returns, puzzles the will
    And makes us rather bear those ills we have
    Than fly to others that we know not of?
    Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
    And thus the native hue of resolution
    Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
    And enterprises of great pitch and moment
    With this regard their currents turn awry,
    And lose the name of action.-Soft you now,
    The fair Ophelia, - Nymph, in thy orisons
    Be all my sins remember'd.


    For me there was always an interactive feature about what the photon could do in terms of describing it's "state of existance" and if this were the case, then how would you have applied such a measure?

    Light-matter interaction
    Low energy phenomena  Photoelectric effect
    Mid-energy phenomena Compton scattering
    High energy phenomena Pair production




    So while we have held the romantic to heart, what "beat in measure" would any in/out going state signify, if the calculation of the photon is "gravitationally considered?" Shall it be so static and discrete that we forgot how raelly smooth these heartbeats really are?

    What Dreams May Come

    When Chris enters the house, he finds that she doesn't recognize him. Pale, gaunt, and miserable-looking, Annie isn't fully aware that she's dead. He talks to her gently, pretending to be a neighbor, before he is able to gain enough of her trust to reach her for a moment. In guilt and disbelief, Annie screams and pushes him away, and a saddened Chris realizes he has failed. He tells his insane wife a last good-bye, and leaves the house. The Tracker consoles him, and Chris tells him he has given up.

    "But," he adds, "Not the way you think."

    He asks the Tracker to give his love to his children, and re-enters the house. Taking his wife's hand, he tells her he won't leave her. He's decided to stay forever in hell and join her in madness rather than leave her again. Somehow, this sacrifice reaches Annie when nothing else can, and she and Chris pull each other out of the miasma of hell, narrowly escaping.


    What Dreams May Come is a 1978 novel by Richard Matheson about the afterlife.

    While some may never have considered the strength of the matter states, and what they hold for us in our decisions, it is of some relevance that the "lighter constituents of gravity" defined in a equilibrium state, are significant, if ever held in context of the "hell's of damnation inferno?"

    It is with some hope, that "the higher realization" of spirituality, will bring us to the father's house? When you roll your eyes upward, it is not so very far away is it?

    So of course as one descends into the hells of what has held us most in life(quark Gluon Plasma) and tamed for us to the conclusion of the way it is? Then, the plight of suffering was wholesomely considered, as Robin Williams sought to get his wife from the choice she had made?

    While it is in some Catholic minds, the sin, it was more the damnation one could have attributed to the minds conclusion i that religious thinking? That it was then locked in what it could no longer take in life, took along with them, in death? But in "cleaning up life's work, as it never seems to conclude whole fully(the medicine wheel) until the realizations are always there for us to think about as parts of the whole? Robin's "choice" with his wife to reincarnate?

    Robin Williams seeing the "beauty of life" saw it in the heaven's making? Certain realizations abundant, and very swift, in every thought form held there for Robin Williams. We should of "held off on our judgements" one might say in life, also made so quickly without recourse?

    Friday, June 16, 2006

    The Fate of our Planet?

    Clifford at cosmic variance addresses a fundamental question about the need(?) to populate other planets, versus exploring?

    Clifford:
    And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future


    But of course, as with any thread there is a diversion of thought, so I answer this, while still trying to understand what he meant by the timescale?

    A Blackhole ate my Planet?


    It's almost worth following the trail of "Risk Assessment" here. Some might remember James Blodgett?

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



    Of course, refering to "cosmic particle collisions",then to have the "issues of strangelets" explained away as well. I mean every journey is fraught with the anxieties of fear. Fear of the unknownas one progresses along the roads to new worlds?



    See:
  • RHIC Animations and Multimedia


  • Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

    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/$c^{2}$.

    So where do we stand with the fate of our planet?

    See:

  • Strangelets Do Not Exist?
  • Thursday, June 08, 2006

    Scott Ellsworth Forbush:Opportune Times for Experimentation?

    Forbush Decrease

    Scott E. Forbush discovered the surprising inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays




    There is some confusion still on my part as I wanted to understand the relationship between high energy particle and the conditions for which particle collisions would provide for secondary particle creations.

    See:
  • How Particles Came to be?


  • This thinking would help to establish further information that has been compelling to me about microstate blackhole creation, and what this may imply for the planet on which we live?

    Has anyone given this any thought as they developed the views on Risk Assessment and try to explain away the possibilties with what happens everyday?



    This thinking then help to stimulate not only secondary particle creations and what we see in our own creations in Atlas, but lays out for us, the sequence of events that are tied cosmologically to the very beginnings of this universe?




    Why did we miss this? Are high energy particle collisions dissauded by Solar Max, or do they remain undeterred in their travel? Here some questions then that arise in terms of how we see the physics of the day in consideration of mass infuences(gravitational lensing, massless photon travel), as I am thinking of Kip thornes picture of travel here as well. Hmmm.....

    Cosmic rays - are subatomic particles, which travel at nearly the speed of light through space and produce secondary cosmic ray particles in the atmosphere.



    Friday, May 19, 2006

    Writing Your Story of Creation?

    "No container is available, and the vaporization must occur in vacuum." Wozniak


    With all that energy concentrated in a space about the size of an atomic nucleus, the colliding ions, for a tiny fraction of a second, will reach a temperature one hundred thousand times hotter than the core of the sun - hot enough to "melt" the ions into their component quarks and gluons. By studying the data from millions of these high-energy collisions, RHIC scientists will be able to gather definitive evidence that quark-gluon plasma was formed, and begin to understand its properties.

    Thousands of particles are emitted following each head-on collision. Sophisticated detectors have been constructed at four of six collision points around the ring to gather and decipher the enormous volumes of data that are recorded regarding the properties of these emitted particles. Two large detectors, PHENIX and STAR, are several stories tall. The other detectors, BRAHMS and PHOBOS, are smaller and more specialized. Scientists will be analyzing data collected by these detectors during continuous runs in the collider throughout the summer. The scientists anticipate releasing the first results from those analyses sometime at the beginning of next year.


    Immediately what came to mind is the reductionist views we have about the beginnings of the universe. The picture above, came to mind. And from it, all the ideas that I had been reading about when I had engaged the topic of the universe in question.

    THis is a interesting question and if you read what anyone might of surmized, how different would this simplification of the question be, if it is holding all the answers to what really happened at the start of that universe?

    Lubos Motl:
    The first one measures the total fraction of the multiverse volume occupied by pocket universes or vacua with the desired value of the quantities. The second one measures the expected density of intelligent life in the given type of vacuum. If defined properly, it is the product of the density of stars,


    Keeping sharp on the nature of speculations.:)Well of course "timing is everything" and if one ask a question in one part of the uiverse how could it ever been related to what Lubos writes in his? Well I have to speak to that:)

    So right away seeing this is a good question to ask, and based on what one had been learning as they engaged science, how consistant would this story be with what is actually been taking place in science? One guess is as good as another? Or are there simplified versions that we could pass onto our children so that they understood the fullscope of this story of creation.

    Now you must remember, as a student and a older one at that, there will always be mistakes. Being granted this reprieve for a time(writing our fiction?), while we look at the question asked, what do I think? Hmmmm.... interesting question.

    Schematic diagram of the collision stages in reactions between a 5 GeV hydrogen ion and a gold nucleus: in the initial stage, heat is deposited in the nucleus, accompanied by the knockout of several fast particles. The hot nucleus then thermalizes and expands, eventually undergoing a "soft explosion," or multifragmentation. During this process, the nucleus acts like a molecule that is going from the liquid to the vapor state. (Image courtsey of Vic Viola, University of Indiana.


    So at the very top of this page there was a problem right away about such containment, and if I was to ask where and how would such conditions emerge for such a thing as the beginning of the universe to be known, why could I not explain it in my immediate environ, where cosmic particle collsions mimic what we are doing in our colliders?

    Is this not simple enough to ask, that such a question could bring perspective not ony from the very beginning of our universe, but to have corralled it to what is happening now. These two things are very important to bring together so that we understand that creation exists in our terminologies, as if every moment has the potential to be created as it was in the very beginning of that universe.

    Isn't this stance important to comprehend as I begin my story?

    As I have been talking about, for so long, I wonder where it would end, that I soon learnt in mind that such a processes had to be cyclical in nature, yet, how could energy start off in place and go through all the phases to have become contained in the "possibility again" to continue this process.

    So here this is another insight into the nature of my story.

    One would have to have surmized the very beginning, and some might called is the sea from which all things arise and it is mythical in nature, that all life arose from this sea of possibilty?

    While some will take their time to descipher the good book some wil try their hand at the "bibble interpetation Sean gives to the public for consideration." Well my story of fiction still begins with "adam and eve." I have a new version though.:)

    To e- or not to e+ :)

    Of course in my own artistic rendition, the shakespearean heart arose from my lips touched to ask. "To be or not to be," is not the question.



    Of course I would have to give credit to Paul(not in the bible) for his early interpretation of the design shown above so as to wonder about such a procreative design to have said, "this is indeed the measure of our reality while we look back to it's beginning?"

    So you needed this measure of "certainty" to ask how is it that such a beginning could have ever emerge from the "values of light" that it could contain information about our beginnings? I know it seems I may be getting too technical for the average Joe?

    Based on the no boundary proposal, I picture the origin of the universe, as like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny universes, out of nothing. Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but a few that reach a critical size, will expand in an inflationary manner, and will form galaxies and stars, and maybe beings like us.


    So it indeed becomes really difficult to contain the very expansive nature of the universe in such a boundary condition, does it not? So you look for the basis of reality in a way that allows such travel or "tunnelling" to help push the idea I have about my story of creation. It is parts and pieces of the that exemplify our ideas about the origins of nature, to wonder, if that energy began? Where did it?


    Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.


    It is very impotrant to set up the "nature of reality" as it began, yet, it is not so simple then to ask that if zeropoint had this basis of reality as well, what existed in this false vacuum, to have it exemplified the resulting information which travelled "through to the universe" as we now know it?

    You had to wonder, and know that such phase changes began in the very beginning,and as the universe unfolded, to have given "all that is" a place in this timeline of expression, to have made it, to what is in the nature of the cosmo?

    It did not mean that we could not find our moments and secondary showers from such a beginning, not to have traced it back and know, that this beginning point was really never so far away? They do it in the colliders. They have t account for this energy, and some of it is missing.

    So containement was a problem, and with it we began to use these analogies for describing "backreaction." Oh, we have some mode of time travel here? Or, that we may have some idea about what is geometriclaly enhanced in our talks, to have actually followed the physics process?

    Yes, I did that too.

    I referenced tunnelling for very specific reasons, but alas, I too have to ask then that if such dissipated forces are the continued unravelling of that fluid state, then how would such information be released in the secondary shower effect?

    The nature of our universe in continued expression?

    That means that it left something somewhere for the false vacuum to have initiated the transferance of the original information, back, into the design of the cosmos?

    I like analogies for that reason, and if some want to write fiction, while they hold other minds to the constraints applied in our reasoning of that science, then you should be prepared to suffer the consequence of what any mind like that of a Kaku, or Greene, in those extra story telling versions?

    You will be targetted for all the insane things you might hence forward say. It's just somethng I noticed when I tried to go deeper into the world that science brings us.:)Scientists can indeed be unkind to each other?

    See:

  • Sonofusion - star in a jar