Showing posts with label HENRI POINCARE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HENRI POINCARE. Show all posts

Monday, April 04, 2011

It's Lowest Energy State....Matter Formed?

Shape as Memory : A Geometric Theory of Architecture

also

The structure of paintings

 

 
I just wanted to lay out a perspective in relation to how one might describe the engine in relation to the design of the exhaust system as supportive of the whole frame of reference as the engine.

The pipe is a resonant chamber which shapes the exhaust pulse train in a way which uses shock waves to constrain the release of the combustion.Russell Grunloh (boatguy)
I mean it is not wholly certain for me that without perception, once realizing that potential recognizes that like some "source code" we are closer to recognizing the seed of our action, is an expression of the momentum of our being. It is a stepping off of all that we have known, is an innate expression of our being in action.

So as souls, we are immortalized as expressions of,  like a memory that tells a story about our life, our choices and the life we choose to live.

Dr. Mark Haskins
On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phemonenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

So it is also about string theory in a way for me as well, and my attempts to understand those expressions in the valley.  Poincare's description of a pebble, rolling down from the hilltop.


It follows then that not all comments will not all be accepted, yet,  I felt it important for one to recognize what Poincare was saying and what I am saying.


HENRI POINCARE Mathematics and Science:Last Essays


Since we are assuming at this juncture the point of view of the mathematician, we must give to this concept all the precision that it requires, even if it becomes necessary to use mathematical language. We should then say that the body of laws is equivalent to a system of differential equations which link the speed of variations of the different elements of the universe to the present values of these elements.

Such a system involves, as we know, an infinite number of solutions, But if we take the initial values of all the elements, that is,their values at the instant t =(which would correspond in ordinary language to the "present"), the solution is completely determined, so that we can calculate the values of all the elements at any period
whatever, whether we suppose />0, which corresponds to the "future," or whether we suppose t<0, which corresponds to the "past." What is important to remember is that the manner of inferring the past from the present does not differ from that of inferring the future from the present.

Contrast the pebble as an issuance of,  from symmetry, and the top of mountain(a sharpened pencil standing straight up) and the decay(asymmetry), as an expression of the solidification of who we are in that valley. as a pebble?? After the example, we are but human form with a soul encased. The present, is our future? Our past, our presence?

Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, by Henri Poincare

8 Last Essays

    "But it is exactly because all things tend toward death that life is
    an exception which it is necessary to explain.

    Let rolling pebbles be left subject to chance on the side of a
    mountain, and they will all end by falling into the valley. If we
    find one of them at the foot, it will be a commonplace effect which
    will teach us nothing about the previous history of the pebble;
    we will not be able to know its original position on the mountain.
    But if, by accident, we find a stone near the summit, we can assert
    that it has always been there, since, if it had been on the slope, it
    would have rolled to the very bottom. And we will make this
    assertion with the greater certainty, the more exceptional the event
    is and the greater the chances were that the situation would not
    have occurred."

Of course I do not believe our lives are just an expression of chance,  but choice as "a memory" we choose. Of course too, how do you set up a life as an expression if you do not continue to learn?



In the pool of symmetry, how did we ever begin? I looked for such expressions as if mathematically deduced from a time where we might be closer to the idea of such a pool. Ramanujan comes to mind.

Then too, if we are to become spiritually immersed back again from where we came from,  then how can we individually be explained "as a spark of measure,"  for each soul as a memory to be chosen from all that has existed before, for such an expression in this life as the task of it's future??

Monday, September 27, 2010

Science and Hypothesis

Whole ItemFormatSize
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_128kb.m3u128kbps M3UStreamB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_64kb.m3u64Kbps M3UStreamB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_64kb_mp3.zip64Kbps MP3 ZIP193.4 MB
Audio Files128Kbps MP3Ogg Vorbis64Kbps MP3
01 - Introduction by Judd Larmor12.4 MB6.9 MB6.2 MB
02 - Author's Preface10.0 MB5.3 MB5.0 MB
03 - On the Nature of Mathematical Reasoning27.9 MB16.3 MB14.0 MB
04 - Mathematical Magnitude and Experiment24.9 MB13.5 MB12.4 MB
05 - Non-Euclidean Geometries25.5 MB12.9 MB12.8 MB
06 - Space and Geometry29.3 MB19.4 MB14.7 MB
07 - Experiment and Geometry24.7 MB16.9 MB12.3 MB
08 - Classical Mechanics28.0 MB14.6 MB14.0 MB
09 - Relative and Absolute Motion18.2 MB13.0 MB9.1 MB
10 - Energy and Thermo-dynamics22.0 MB12.5 MB11.0 MB
11 - Hypotheses in Physics26.6 MB14.7 MB13.3 MB
12 - The Theories of Modern Physics30.4 MB17.3 MB15.2 MB
13 - The Calculus of Probability46.4 MB33.3 MB23.2 MB
14 - Optics and Electricity20.8 MB11.5 MB10.4 MB
15 - Electro-Dynamics39.4 MB23.0 MB19.7 MB
InformationFormatSize
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_files.xmlMetadata20.8 KB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_meta.xmlMetadata2.2 KB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_reviews.xmlMetadata195.0 B

***
See Also:

A Model for Thought?

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Three-body problem and WMAP

"We all are of the citizens of the Sky" Camille Flammarion


In 1858, by the set of its relations, it will allow Camille Flammarion, the 16 years age, to enter as raises astronomer at the Observatory of Paris under the orders of Urbain the Glassmaker, at the office of calculations.


See:The Gravity Landscape and Lagrange Points



Now there is a reason that I am showing "this connection" so that the jokes that go around at the PI institute in regards to Tegmark( not that I am speaking for him and have absolutely no affiliation of any kind) and the "mathematical constructs are recognized" beyond just the jeering section, that while not being a party too, will and can be shown some light.

Three-body problem

For n ≥ 3 very little is known about the n-body problem. The case n = 3 was most studied, for many results can be generalised to larger n. The first attempts to understand the 3-body problem were quantitative, aiming at finding explicit solutions.

* In 1767 Euler found the collinear periodic orbits, in which three bodies of any masses move such that they oscillate along a rotation line.
* In 1772 Lagrange discovered some periodic solutions which lie at the vertices of a rotating equilateral triangle that shrinks and expands periodically. Those solutions led to the study of central configurations , for which \ddot q=kq for some constant k>0 .

The three-body problem is much more complicated; its solution can be chaotic. A major study of the Earth-Moon-Sun system was undertaken by Charles-Eugène Delaunay, who published two volumes on the topic, each of 900 pages in length, in 1860 and 1867. Among many other accomplishments, the work already hints at chaos, and clearly demonstrates the problem of so-called "small denominators" in perturbation theory.
The chaotic movement of 3 interacting particles
The chaotic movement of 3 interacting particles

The restricted three-body problem assumes that the mass of one of the bodies is negligible; the circular restricted three-body problem is the special case in which two of the bodies are in circular orbits (approximated by the Sun-Earth-Moon system and many others). For a discussion of the case where the negligible body is a satellite of the body of lesser mass, see Hill sphere; for binary systems, see Roche lobe; for another stable system, see Lagrangian point.

The restricted problem (both circular and elliptical) was worked on extensively by many famous mathematicians and physicists, notably Lagrange in the 18th century and Poincaré at the end of the 19th century. Poincaré's work on the restricted three-body problem was the foundation of deterministic chaos theory. In the circular problem, there exist five equilibrium points. Three are collinear with the masses (in the rotating frame) and are unstable. The remaining two are located on the third vertex of both equilateral triangles of which the two bodies are the first and second vertices. This may be easier to visualize if one considers the more massive body (e.g., Sun) to be "stationary" in space, and the less massive body (e.g., Jupiter) to orbit around it, with the equilibrium points maintaining the 60 degree-spacing ahead of and behind the less massive body in its orbit (although in reality neither of the bodies is truly stationary; they both orbit the center of mass of the whole system). For sufficiently small mass ratio of the primaries, these triangular equilibrium points are stable, such that (nearly) massless particles will orbit about these points as they orbit around the larger primary (Sun). The five equilibrium points of the circular problem are known as the Lagrange points.


So the thing is, that while one may not of found an anomalousness version of what is written into the pattern of WMAP( some Alien signal perhaps in a dimension of space that results in star manipulation), and what comes out, or how string theory plays this idea that some formulation exists in it's over calculated version of mathematical decor.

String Theory

In either case, gravity acting in the hidden dimensions affects other non-gravitational forces such as electromagnetism. In fact, Kaluza and Klein's early work demonstrated that general relativity with five large dimensions and one small dimension actually predicts the existence of electromagnetism. However, because of the nature of Calabi-Yau manifolds, no new forces appear from the small dimensions, but their shape has a profound effect on how the forces between the strings appear in our four dimensional universe. In principle, therefore, it is possible to deduce the nature of those extra dimensions by requiring consistency with the standard model, but this is not yet a practical possibility. It is also possible to extract information regarding the hidden dimensions by precision tests of gravity, but so far these have only put upper limitations on the size of such hidden dimensions.
Bold was added by me for emphasis. See also:Angels and Demons on a Pinhead

This is/was to be part of the hopes of people in research for a long time. I have seen it before, in terms of orbitals(the analogical version of the event in the cosmos) and how such events could gave been portrayed in those same locations in space. Contribute, to the larger and global distinction of what the universe is actually doing. If it's speeding up, what exactly does this mean, and what should we be looking for from what is being contributed to the "global perspective" of WMAP from these locations??

But lets move on here okay.

If you understand the "three body problem" and being on my own, and seeing things other then what people reveal in the reports that they write, how it is possible for a lone researcher like me to come up with the same ideas about the universe having some kind of geometrical inclination?

You would have to know that "such accidents while in privy to data before us all", and what is written into the calculations by hand would reveal? Well, I never did have that information. What I did know is what Sean Carroll presented of the Lopsided Universe for consideration. This coincided nicely with my work to comprehend Poincaré in a historical sense. The relationship with Klein.

As mentioned before, at the time, I was doing my own reading on Poincaré and of course I had followed the work of Tegmark and John Baez's expose' on what the shape of the universe shall look like. This is recorded throughout my bloggery here for the checking.

What I want to say.

Given the mathematics with which one sees the universe and however this mathematical constructs reveals of nature, nature always existed. What was shown is that the discovery of the mathematics made it possible to understand something beautiful about nature. So in a sense the mathematics was always there, we just did not recognize it.:)

Saturday, July 12, 2008

The Geologist and the Mathematician

In an ordinary 2-sphere, any loop can be continuously tightened to a point on the surface. Does this condition characterize the 2-sphere? The answer is yes, and it has been known for a long time. The Poincaré conjecture asks the same question for the 3-sphere, which is more difficult to visualize.

On December 22, 2006, the journal Science honored Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year," the first time this had been bestowed in the area of mathematics


I have been following the Poincaré work under the heading of the Poincaré Conjecture. It would serve to point out any relation that would be mathematically inclined to deserve a philosophically jaunt into the "derivation of a mind in comparative views" that one might come to some conclusion about the nature of the world, that we would see it differences, and know that is arose from such philosophical debate.

Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.


Previous links in label index on right and relative associative posts point out the basis of the Poincaré Conjecture and it's consequent in developmental attempts to deduction about the nature of the world in an mathematical abstract sense?

Jules Henri Poincare (1854-1912)

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful. He studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.


HENRI POINCARE

Mathematics and Science:Last Essays

8 Last Essays

But it is exactly because all things tend toward death that life is
an exception which it is necessary to explain.

Let rolling pebbles be left subject to chance on the side of a
mountain, and they will all end by falling into the valley. If we
find one of them at the foot, it will be a commonplace effect which
will teach us nothing about the previous history of the pebble;
we will not be able to know its original position on the mountain.
But if, by accident, we find a stone near the summit, we can assert
that it has always been there, since, if it had been on the slope, it
would have rolled to the very bottom. And we will make this
assertion with the greater certainty, the more exceptional the event
is and the greater the chances were that the situation would not
have occurred.


How simple such a view that one would speak about the complexity of the world in it's relations. To know that any resting place on the mountain could have it's descendants resting in some place called such a valley?

Stratification and Mind Maps

Pascal's Triangle

By which path, and left to some "Pascalian idea" about comparing some such mountains in abstraction to such a view, we are left to "numbered pathways" by such a design that we can call it "a resting" by nature selection of all probable pathways?


Diagram 6. Khu Shijiei triangle, depth 8, 1303.
The so called 'Pascal' triangle was known in China as early as 1261. In '1261 the triangle appears to a depth of six in Yang Hui and to a depth of eight in Zhu Shijiei (as in diagram 6) in 1303. Yang Hui attributes the triangle to Jia Xian, who lived in the eleventh century' (Stillwell, 1989, p136). They used it as we do, as a means of generating the binomial coefficients.

It wasn't until the eleventh century that a method for solving quadratic and cubic equations was recorded, although they seemed to have existed since the first millennium. At this time Jia Xian 'generalised the square and cube root procedures to higher roots by using the array of numbers known today as the Pascal triangle and also extended and improved the method into one useable for solving polynomial equations of any degree' (Katz, 1993, p191.)



Even the wisest of us does not realize what Boltzmann in his expressions would leave for us that such expression would leave to chance such pebbles in that valley for such considerations, that we might call this pebble, "some topological form," left to the preponderance for us in our descriptions to what nature shall reveal in those same valleys?

The Topography of Energy Resting in the Valleys

The theory of strings predicts that the universe might occupy one random "valley" out of a virtually infinite selection of valleys in a vast landscape of possibilities

Most certainly it should be understood that the "valley and the pebble" are two separate things, and yet, can we not say that the pebble is an artifact of the energy in expression that eventually lies resting in one of the possible pathways to that energy at rest.

The mountain, "as a stratification" exists.



Here in mind then, such rooms are created.

The ancients would have us believe in mind, that such "high mountain views do exist." Your "Olympus," or the "Fields of Elysium." Today, are these not to be considered in such a way? Such a view is part and parcel of our aspirate. The decomposable limits will be self evident in what shall rest in the valleys of our views?

Such elevations are a closer to a decomposable limit of the energy in my views. The sun shall shine, and the matter will be describe in such a view. Here we have reverted to such a view that is closer to the understanding, that such particle disseminations are the pebbles, and that such expressions, have been pushed back our views on the nature of the cosmos. Regardless of what the LHC does not represent, or does, in minds with regards to the BIG Bang? The push back to micros perspective views, allow us to introduce examples of this analogy, as artifacts of our considerations, and these hold in my view, a description closer to the source of that energy in expression.

To be bold here means to push on, in face of what the limitations imposed by such statements of Lee Smolin as a statement a book represents, and subsequent desires now taken by Hooft, in PI's Status of research and development.

It means to continue in face of the Witten's tiring of abstraction of the landscape. It means to go past the "intellectual defeatism" expressed by a Woitian design held of that mathematical world.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Who said it?

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’. Michael Atiyah


"No Royal Road to Geometry?"

Click on the Picture

Are you an observant person? Look at the above picture. Why ask such a question as to, "No Royal Road to Geometry?" This presupposes that a logic is formulated that leads not only one by the "phenomenological values" but by the very principal of logic itself.

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


I don't think I could of made it any easier for one, but to reveal the answer in the quote. Now you must remember how the logic is introduced here, and what came before Euclid. The postulates are self evident in his analysis but, little did he know that there would be a "Royal Road indeed" to geometry that was much more complex and beautiful then the dry implication logic would reveal of itself.

It's done for a reason and all the geometries had to be leading in this progressive view to demonstrate that a "projective geometry" is the final destination, although, still evolving?

Eventually it was discovered that the parallel postulate is logically independent of the other postulates, and you get a perfectly consistent system even if you assume that parallel postulate is false. This means that it is possible to assign meanings to the terms "point" and "line" in such a way that they satisfy the first four postulates but not the parallel postulate. These are called non-Euclidean geometries. Projective geometry is not really a typical non-Euclidean geometry, but it can still be treated as such.

In this axiomatic approach, projective geometry means any collection of things called "points" and things called "lines" that obey the same first four basic properties that points and lines in a familiar flat plane do, but which, instead of the parallel postulate, satisfy the following opposite property instead:

The projective axiom: Any two lines intersect (in exactly one point).


If you are "ever the artist" it is good to know in which direction you will use the sun, in order to demonstrate the shadowing that will go on into your picture. While you might of thought there was everything to know about Plato's cave and it's implication I am telling you indeed that the logic is a formative apparatus concealed in the geometries that are used to explain such questions about, "the shape of space."

The Material World

There are two reasons that having mapped E8 is so important. The practical one is that E8 has major applications: mathematical analysis of the most recent versions of string theory and supergravity theories all keep revealing structure based on E8. E8 seems to be part of the structure of our universe.

The other reason is just that the complete mapping of E8 is the largest mathematical structure ever mapped out in full detail by human beings. It takes 60 gigabytes to store the map of E8. If you were to write it out on paper in 6-point print (that's really small print), you'd need a piece of paper bigger than the island of Manhattan. This thing is huge.


Polytopes and allotrope are examples to me of "shapes in their formative compulsions" that while very very small in their continuing expression, "below planck length" in our analysis of the world, has an "formative structure" in the case of the allotrope in the material world. The polytopes, as an abstract structure of math thinking about the world. As if in nature's other ways.



This illustration depicts eight of the allotropes (different molecular configurations) that pure carbon can take:

a) Diamond
b) Graphite
c) Lonsdaleite
d) Buckminsterfullerene (C60)
e) C540
f) C70
g) Amorphous carbon
h) single-walled carbon nanotube


Review of experiments

Graphite exhibits elastic behaviour and even improves its mechanical strength up to the temperature of about 2500 K. Measured changes in ultrasonic velocity in graphite after high temperature creep shows marked plasticity at temperatures above 2200 K [16]. From the standpoint of thermodynamics, melting is a phase transition of the first kind, with an abrupt enthalpy change constituting the heat of melting. Therefore, any experimental proof of melting is associated with direct recording of the temperature dependence of enthalpy in the neighbourhood of a melting point. Pulsed heating of carbon materials was studied experimentally by transient electrical resistance and arc discharge techniques, in millisecond and microsecond time regime (see, e.g., [17, 18]), and by pulsed laser heating, in microsecond, nanosecond and picosecond time regime (see, e.g., [11, 19, 20]). Both kind of experiments recorded significant changes in the material properties (density, electrical and thermal conductivity, reflectivity, etc. ) within the range 4000-5000 K, interpreted as a phase change to a liquid state. The results of graphite irradiation by lasers suggest [11] that there is at least a small range of temperatures for which liquid carbon can exist at pressure as low as 0.01 GPa. The phase boundaries between graphite and liquid were investigated experimentally and defined fairly well.


Sean Carroll:But if you peer closely, you will see that the bottom one is the lopsided one — the overall contrast (representing temperature fluctuations) is a bit higher on the left than on the right, while in the untilted image at the top they are (statistically) equal. (The lower image exaggerates the claimed effect in the real universe by a factor of two, just to make it easier to see by eye.)
See The Lopsided Universe-.

#36.Plato on Jun 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am

Lawrence,

Thanks again.

“I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered.”Harold Scott Macdonald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

Moving to polytopes or allotrope seem to have values in science? Buckminister Fuller and Richard Smalley in terms of allotrope.

I was looking at Sylvestor surfaces and the Clebsch diagram. Cayley too. These configurations to me were about “surfaces,” and if we were to allot a progression to the “projective geometries” here in relation to higher dimensional thinking, “as the polytope[E8]“(where Coxeter[I meant to apologize for misspelling earlier] drew us to abstraction to the see “higher dimensional relations” toward Plato’s light.)

As the furthest extent of the Conjecture , how shall we place the dynamics of Sylvestor surfaces and B Fields in relation to the timeline of these geometries? Historically this would seem in order, but under the advancement of thinking in theoretics does it serve a purpose? Going beyond “planck length” what is a person to do?

Thanks for the clarifications on Lagrange points. This is how I see the WMAP.

Diagram of the Lagrange Point gravitational forces associated with the Sun-Earth system. WMAP orbits around L2, which is about 1.5 million km from the Earth. Lagrange Points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two body system like the Sun and the Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion. The forces at L2 tend to keep WMAP aligned on the Sun-Earth axis, but requires course correction to keep the spacecraft from moving toward or away from the Earth.


Such concentration in the view of Sean’s group of the total WMAP while finding such a concentration would be revealing would it not of this geometrical instance in relation to gravitational gathering or views of the bulk tendency? Another example to show this fascinating elevation to non-euclidean, gravitational lensing, could be seen in this same light.

Such mapping would be important to the context of “seeing in the whole universe.”


See:No Royal Road to Geometry
Allotropes and the Ray of Creation
Pasquale Del Pezzo and E8 Origination?
Projective Geometries

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Ueber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen.

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



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




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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Zurich, 14 October 1913

Highly esteemed colleague,

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

[Grav. field] [Light ray]

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

[Earth] [Sun]

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


Fast Forward to an Effect

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

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



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

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

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

Einstein:

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


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

See:

  • On the Hypothese at the foundations of Geometry

  • Gravity and Electromagnetism?

  • "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" by Clifford M. Will
  • Wednesday, January 09, 2008

    HENRI POINCARE : Mathematics and Science-Last Essays

    Jules Henri Poincare (1854-1912)

    The scientist does not study nature because it is useful. He studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.


    HENRI POINCARE Mathematics and Science:Last Essays

    Since we are assuming at this juncture the point of view of the mathematician, we must give to this concept all the precision that it requires, even if it becomes necessary to use mathematical language. We should then say that the body of laws is equivalent to a system of differential equations which link the speed of variations of the different elements of the universe to the present values of these elements.

    Such a system involves, as we know, an infinite number of solutions, But if we take the initial values of all the elements, that is,their values at the instant t =(which would correspond in ordinary language to the "present"), the solution is completely determined, so that we can calculate the values of all the elements at any period
    whatever, whether we suppose />0, which corresponds to the "future," or whether we suppose t<0, which corresponds to the "past." What is important to remember is that the manner of inferring the past from the present does not differ from that of inferring the future from the present.

    Tuesday, June 06, 2006

    Supersymmetry<->Simplistically<-> Entropically Designed?



    So of course I am troubled by my inexperience, as well as, the interests of what could have been produced in the "new computers" of the future? So in some weird sense how would you wrap the dynamics of what lead to "Moore's law" and find that this consideration is now in trouble? While having wrapped the "potential chaoticness" in a systemic feature here as deterministic? Is this apporpriate?

    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:


    What happens exponetially in recognizing the avenues first debated between what was a consequence of "two paths," One that would be more then likely "a bizzare" while some would have consider the other, the cathedral? Leftists should not be punished Lubos:)

    So what is Chaos then?

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

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





    So this talk then is taken to "another level" and the distinctions of WeB 2.0 raised it's head, and of course, if you read the exponential growth highlghted in communities desemmination of all information, how could it be only Web 1.0 if held to Netscape design?



    I mean definitely, if we were to consider "the Pascalian triangle" and the emergence of the numbered systems, what said the Riemann Hypothesis would not have emerged also? The "marble drop" as some inclusive designation of the development of curves in society, that were once raised from "an idea" drawn, from some place?

    Sunday, April 09, 2006

    Arthur Koestler and Creativity

    True creativity often starts where language ends.
    Arthur Koestler


    For those who engaged the issue of intuition, can we say that this is very close to what creativity is ,and the quote suplied above, is in essence. Is the mind, having come to a point on the Aristotlean arch, as, having fully understood, that work with reason and insight would have been to see that, the medium what ever it is, is held to this regard?



    If the question is held in context of the mind and foci is strong, in what probabilistic venue would we see such events as issuing from someplace? This I would say would be the "unconscious" and in having diagramed this in a schematic way, how is it that such causations, might have been tied to the fisherman's line and lure, that is sent deep into a future for an examination result.

    Of Koestler’s many books, his powerfully anti-Communist novel Darkness at Noon (1941) is still the most famous, but he wrote one book that focused squarely on the paranormal – The Roots of Coincidence (1972). Here, he attempts to find a basis for paranormal events in coincidence, or more precisely synchronicity, so that there is only one phenomenon to explain rather than many. He proceeds to seek the roots of coincidence in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of quantum physics, the infinitesimally small subatomic realm where our everyday logic no longer holds sway, where particles can be waves and vice versa, where forces that only mathematical equations can glimpse swim in the dark, unfathomable ocean of probability before the manifestation of either matter or mind. Towards the end of the book, Koestler pleads that parapsychology be made “academically respectable and attractive to students”, otherwise the “limitations of our biological equipment may condemn us to the role of Peeping Toms at the keyhole of eternity”.


    So it was gathered all around, everything that we were involved with, and out of it, a solution abstractually engaging the mind in symbolisms of a language not understood. But still relevant. What would this new language be, if it had run it's course previously, and we needed new insight. We were careful then in understanding the porgress can be made in our expectancy, as well as having full confident in the self, to explore these unknown regions.

    Who better then to create the dialogue necessary in bringing forth the creative flow, if we had acknowledged the teacher and student, within ourselves?

    Art Mirrors Physics Mirrors Art, by Stephen G. Brush

    The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis (French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent examiner. Picasso learned about Science and Hypothesis indirectly through Maurice Princet, an insurance actuary who explained the new geometry to Picasso and his friends in Paris. At that time there was considerable popular fascination with the idea of a fourth spatial dimension, thought by some to be the home of spirits, conceived by others as an "astral plane" where one can see all sides of an object at once. The British novelist H. G. Wells caused a sensation with his book The Time Machine (1895, French translation in a popular magazine 1898-99), where the fourth dimension was time, not space.


    So, would we have recognized some of these features, in the way the words are written, or how the question mark, would transcended the inspiration sought and found from others, who would propel us forward? The conditions then and foundational attitudes had to rely on what history had already gone through, that we might have recognized also the work that Poincare might have relinquished in that dialogue. To have propelled other minds, like Picasso or Einstein forward?

    Is this where "time" became something of a issue with the space coordinates, that such resolution might have paved the way for a spacetime? Answered, what the fourth dimension actually was? Such progression then would have been important, as we move forward in society that not only had Poincare provided the prospect, but that also Grossman in the geometrically refined views sought out as well, to contribute to the troubles Einstein was facing?

    Where these might have thought to be random, the events are tied together? Are seen in the actualization of what trasncended these two random events? Or were they?



    We talk about the historical time and around then, what was happening if we had seen information on Flatland and Abbott? Issues of mysticism held in context of what those extra dimensions might actually mean.

    Out of this, a new found responsibility, as to how such mysticism once held in the spookiness of Einstein, has now an explanation that has been further refined in what a Anton Zeilinger might have been doing for us?

    Monday, December 26, 2005

    Tiny Bubbles



    AS a child, Einsten when given the gift of the compass, immediately reocgnized the mystery in nature? If such a impression could have instigated the work that had unfolded over timein regards to Relativity, then what work could have ever instigated the understanding of the Pea as a constant reminder of what the universe became in the mind of a child, as we sleep on it?

    Hills and Valley held in context of Wayne Hu's explanations was a feasible product of the landscape to work with?

    'The Princess & The Pea' from 'The Washerwoman's Child'


    If Strings abhors infinities, then the "Princess's Pea" was really a creation of "three spheres" emmanating from the "fabric of spacetime?" It had to be reduced from spacetime to a three dimensional frame work?

    Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number. Here, the choice of number reflects the dimension of the sphere as a manifold.

    a 0-sphere is a pair of points
    a 1-sphere is a circle
    a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
    a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space

    Spheres for n ¡Ý 3 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere. The notation Sn is also often used to denote any set with a given structure (topological space, topological manifold, smooth manifold, etc.) identical (homeomorphic, diffeomorphic, etc.) to the structure of Sn above.

    An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold.


    Was it really fantasy that Susskind was involved in, or was there some motivated ideas held in mathematical structure? People like to talk about him without really understandng how such geometrical propensities might have motivated his mind to consider conjectures within the physics of our world?

    Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.


    You had to realize that working in these abstractions, such work was not to be abandon because we might have thought such abstraction to far from the tangible thinking that topologies might see of itself?


    Poincaré Conjecture Proved--This Time for Real
    By Eric W. Weisstein

    In the form originally proposed by Henri Poincaré in 1904 (Poincaré 1953, pp. 486 and 498), Poincaré's conjecture stated that every closed simply connected three-manifold is homeomorphic to the three-sphere. Here, the three-sphere (in a topologist's sense) is simply a generalization of the familiar two-dimensional sphere (i.e., the sphere embedded in usual three-dimensional space and having a two-dimensional surface) to one dimension higher. More colloquially, Poincaré conjectured that the three-sphere is the only possible type of bounded three-dimensional space that contains no holes. This conjecture was subsequently generalized to the conjecture that every compact n-manifold is homotopy-equivalent to the n-sphere if and only if it is homeomorphic to the n-sphere. The generalized statement is now known as the Poincaré conjecture, and it reduces to the original conjecture for n = 3.


    While it is very dificult for me "to see" how such movements are characterized in those higher spaces, it is not without some understanding that such topologies and genus figures would point to the continuity of expression, as "energy and matter" related in a most curious way? Let's consider the non-discretium way in which such continuites work, shall we?

    From one perspective this circle woud have some valuation to the makings of the universe in expression, would identify itself where such potenials are raised from the singular function of the circular colliders. Those extra dimensions had to have some basis to evolve too in those higher spaces for such thinking to have excelled to more then mathematical conjectures?

    We can also consider donuts with more handles attached. The number of handles in a donut is its most important topological information. It is called the genus.


    It might be expressed in the tubes of KK tower modes of measure? That such "differences of energies" might have held the thinking to the brane world, yet revealled a three dimensional perspective in the higher diemnsional world of bulk. These had to depart from the physics, and held in context?



    Clay Institute

    If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the apple is "simply connected," but that the surface of the doughnut is not. Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.


    While three spheres has been generalized in my point of view, I am somewhat perplexed by sklar potential when thinking about torus's and a hole with using a rubber band. If the formalization of Greene's statement so far were valid then such a case of the universe emblazoning itself within some structure mathematically inclined, what would have raised all these other thoughts towards quantum geometry?

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


    Was our thoughts based in a wonderful world, where such purity of math structure became the basis of our expressions while speaking to the nature of the reality of our world?


    Bubble Nucleation


    Some people do not like to consider the context of universe and the suppositions that arose from insight drawn, and held to possibile scenario's. I like to consider these things because I am interested in how a geometical cosistancy might be born into the cyclical nature. Where such expression might hold our thinking minds.


    Science and it's Geometries?



    Have these already been dimissed by the physics assigned, that we now say that this scenario is not so likely? Yet we are held by the awe and spector of superfluids, whose origination might have been signalled by the gravitational collapse?

    Would we be so less inclined not to think about Dirac's Sea of virtual particles to think the origination might have issued from the very warms water of mother's creative womb, nestled.

    Spheres that rise from the deep waters of our thinking, to have seen the basis of all maths and geometries from the heart designed. Subjective yet in the realization of the philosophy embued, the very voice speaks only from a pure mathematical realm, and is covered by the very cloaks of one's reason?

    After doing so, they realized that all inflationary theories produced open universes in the manner Turok described above(below here). In the end, they created the Hawking-Turok Instanton theory.


    The process is a bit like the formation of a bubble
    in a boiling pan of water...the interior of this tiny
    bubble manages to turn itself into an infinite open
    universe. Imagine a bubble forming and expanding at the
    speed of light, so that it becomes very big, very quickly.
    Now look inside the bubble.

    The peculiar thing is that in such a bubble, space and time
    get tangled in such a way that what we would call today's
    universe would actually include the entire future of the
    bubble. But because the bubble gets infinitely large in
    the future, the size of 'today's universe' is actually infinite.
    So an infinite,open universe is formed inside a tiny, initially
    microscopic bubble.

    Friday, October 14, 2005

    Art and Science

    This is going to be quite the blog entry because as little a response might have been from Clifford's links to artistic imagery and it's relation to science. I definitely have more to say.

    So being short of time, the entries within this blog posting will seem disjointed, but believe me it will show a historical significance that one would not have considered had one not seen the relevance of art and it's implications along side of science.

    Did Picasso Know About Einstein

    Arthur Miller
    Miller has since moved away from conventional history of science, having become interested in visual imagery through reading the German-language papers of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger - "people who were concerned with visualization and visualizability". Philosophy was an integral part of the German school system in the early 1900s, Miller explains, and German school pupils were thoroughly trained in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.


    Piece Depicts the Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Identity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano
    The Myth of the Beginning of Time

    The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the big bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millenia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined witha grand set of concerns, one famosly encapsulated in a 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
    Scientific America, The Time before Time, May 2004.



    Sister Wendy's American Masterpieces":

    "This is Gauguin's ultimate masterpiece - if all the Gauguins in the world, except one, were to be evaporated (perish the thought!), this would be the one to preserve. He claimed that he did not think of the long title until the work was finished, but he is known to have been creative with the truth. The picture is so superbly organized into three "scoops" - a circle to right and to left, and a great oval in the center - that I cannot but believe he had his questions in mind from the start. I am often tempted to forget that these are questions, and to think that he is suggesting answers, but there are no answers here; there are three fundamental questions, posed visually.

    "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).

    "All this is set in a paradise of tropical beauty: the Tahiti of sunlight, freedom, and color that Gauguin left everything to find. A little river runs through the woods, and behind it is a great slash of brilliant blue sea, with the misty mountains of another island rising beyond Gauguin wanted to make it absolutely clear that this picture was his testament. He seems to have concocted a story that, being ill and unappreciated (that part was true enough), he determined on suicide - the great refusal. He wrote to a friend, describing his journey into the mountains with arsenic. Then he found himself still alive, and returned to paint more masterworks. It is sad that so great an artist felt he needed to manufacture a ploy to get people to appreciate his work. I wish he could see us now, looking with awe at this supreme painting.
    "


    Art Mirrors Physics Mirrors Art, by Stephen G. Brush


    Arthur Miller addresses an important question: What was the connection, if any, between the simultaneous appearance of modern physics and modern art at the beginning of the 20th century? He has chosen to answer it by investigating in parallel biographies the pioneering works of the leaders of the two fields, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso. His brilliant book, Einstein, Picasso, offers the best explanation I have seen for the apparently independent discoveries of cubism and relativity as parts of a larger cultural transformation. He sees both as being focused on the nature of space and on the relation between perception and reality.

    The suggestion that some connection exists between cubism and relativity, both of which appeared around 1905, is not new. But it has been made mostly by art critics who saw it as a simple causal connection: Einstein's theory influenced Picasso's painting. This idea failed for lack of plausible evidence. Miller sees the connection as being less direct: both Einstein and Picasso were influenced by the same European culture, in which speculations about four-dimensional geometry and practical problems of synchronizing clocks were widely discussed.

    The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis (French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent examiner. Picasso learned about Science and Hypothesis indirectly through Maurice Princet, an insurance actuary who explained the new geometry to Picasso and his friends in Paris. At that time there was considerable popular fascination with the idea of a fourth spatial dimension, thought by some to be the home of spirits, conceived by others as an "astral plane" where one can see all sides of an object at once. The British novelist H. G. Wells caused a sensation with his book The Time Machine (1895, French translation in a popular magazine 1898-99), where the fourth dimension was time, not space.


    The Search for Extra Dimensions
    OR Does Dzero Have Branes?


    by Greg Landsberg
    Theorists tell us that these extra spatial dimensions, if they exist, are curled up, or "compactified."In the example with the ant, we could imagine rolling the sheet of paper to form a cylinder. If the ant crawled in the direction of curvature, it would eventually come back to the point where it started--an example of a compactified dimension. If the ant crawled in a direction parallel to the length of the cylinder, it would never come back to the same point (assuming a cylinder so long so that the ant never reaches the edge)--an example of a "flat"dimension. According to superstring theory, we live in a universe where our three familiar dimensions of space are "flat,"but there are additional dimensions, curled up so tightly so they have an extremely small radius


    Issues with Dimensionality

    "Why must art be clinically “realistic?” This Cubist “revolt against perspective” seized the fourth dimension because it touched the third dimension from all possible perspectives. Simply put, Cubist art embraced the fourth dimension. Picasso's paintings are a splendid example, showing a clear rejection of three dimensional perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Instead of a single point-of-view, Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as if they were painted by a being from the fourth dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously. As art historian Linda Henderson has written, “the fourth dimension and non-Euclidean geometry emerge as among the most important themes unifying much of modern art and theory."

    And who could not forget Salvador Dali?

    In geometry, the tesseract, or hypercube, is a regular convex polychoron with eight cubical cells. It can be thought of as a 4-dimensional analogue of the cube. Roughly speaking, the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square.

    Generalizations of the cube to dimensions greater than three are called hypercubes or measure polytopes. This article focuses on the 4D hypercube, the tesseract.



    So it is interesting nonetheless isn't it that we would find pictures and artists who engaged themselves with seeing in ways that the art seems capable of, while less inclinations on the minds to grasp other opportunities had they had this vision of the artist? They of course, added their flavor as Salvador Dali did in the painting below this paragraph. It recognize the greater value of assigning dimensionality to thinking that leads us even further had we not gone through a revision of a kind to understand the graviton bulk perspective could have so much to do with the figures and realization of what dimensionality means.



    So while such lengths had been lead to in what curvature parameters might do to our views of the cosmos, it wasn't to hard to envision the realistic valuation of graviton as group gatherings whose curvature indications change greatly on what we saw of the energy determinations.

    Beyond forms

    Probability of all events(fifth dimension) vvvvvvvvvvvvv Future-Time vvvvvvvvvvv | vvvvvvvvv | vvvvvvv | vvvvv | vvv | v | <<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>now -------| flash fourth dimension with time | A | AAA | AAAAA | AAAAAAA | AAAAAAAAA | AAAAAAAAAAA | AAAA ___AAAAA | AAAAA/__/|AAAAA____Three dimension AAAAAA|__|/AAAAAA | AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA | | ___ | /__/ brane--------two dimension \ / .(U)1=5th dimension


    I hope this helps explain. It certainly got me thinking, drawing it:)

    Similarly a hypercube’s shadow cast in the third dimension becomes a cube within a cube and, if rotated in four dimensions, executes motions that would appear impossible to our three-dimensional brains.

    So hyperdimenionsal geometry must have found itself describable, having understood that Euclid's postulate leads to the understanding of the fifth. A->B and the field becomes a interesting idea, not only from a number of directions(Inverse Square Law), dimensional understanding of a string, that leads from the fifth dimensional perspective is a point, with a energy value that describes for us the nature of curvature, when extended to a string length(also becomes the point looking at the end, a sphere from a point, and at the same time a cylinder in its length).

    In looking at Einsteins fourth dimension of time, the idea of gravity makes its appearance in respect of dimension.

    So how is it minds like ours could perceive a fifth dimensional perspective but to have been lead to it. It is not always about points( a discrete perspective)but of the distance in between those points. We have talked about Gauss here before and Riemann.

    Who in Their Right Mind?


    Penrose's Influence on Escher
    During the later half of the 1950’s, Maurits Cornelius Escher received a letter from Lionel and Roger Penrose. This letter consisted of a report by the father and son team that focused on impossible figures. By this time, Escher had begun exploring impossible worlds. He had recently produced the lithograph Belvedere based on the “rib-cube,” an impossible cuboid named by Escher (Teuber 161). However, the letter by the Penroses, which would later appear in the British Journal of Psychology, enlightened Escher to two new impossible objects; the Penrose triangle and the Penrose stairs. With these figures, Escher went on to create further impossible worlds that break the laws of three-dimensional space, mystify one’s mind, and give a window to the artist heart.


    Penrose and Quanglement


    Order and Chaos, by Escher (lithograph, 1950)