Showing posts with label Laughlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Laughlin. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

ATLAS discovers its first new particle

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Superconductivity Dance Flash Mob

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



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



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

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

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

***

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

 ***

See Also
Update:

    Monday, December 31, 2007

    "Lego Block" Galaxies in Early Universe

    Witten:

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


    n this image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, several objects are identified as the faintest, most compact galaxies ever observed in the distant universe. They are so far away that we see them as they looked less than one billion years after the Big Bang. Blazing with the brilliance of millions of stars, each of the newly discovered galaxies is a hundred to a thousand times smaller than our Milky Way Galaxy.

    The bottom row of pictures shows several of these clumps (distance expressed in redshift value). Three of the galaxies appear to be slightly disrupted. Rather than being shaped like rounded blobs, they appear stretched into tadpole-like shapes. This is a sign that they may be interacting and merging with neighboring galaxies to form larger structures.

    The detection required joint observations between Hubble and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Blue light seen by Hubble shows the presence of young stars. The absence of infrared light from Spitzer observations conclusively shows that these are truly young galaxies without an earlier generation of stars.


    I always like to think that while we refrain from the actual Lego Building block that a child may use, the infancy in our views of the universe, are principles and terms that a condensed matter theorist might use.


    Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.Robert Laughlin


    See:Welcome to ICAM-I2CAM



    Update:


    Wednesday, June 06, 2007

    The Cosmic Landscape

    I noticed a few blogs mentioning the landscape.

    Asymptotia(Clifford Johnson), The Reference Frame(Lubos Motl), and Not Even Wrong (Peter Woit's) blog.

    The Cosmic Landscape:String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind

    After reading Susskind's book in regards to the landscape issue, I was intrigued by the First Three Microseconds previous as it helped iilucidate some of this information for me. As well as giving me some indications from the blogs mentioned and the topic therein.

    What struck me a quite profound in reading Susskind's book, was that what was to all appearances a troubling issue with "eyesight," in regards to Peter Woits idea of intelligent design attributed to the landscape of string theory, that Susskind, was actually answering him by pronoucing the title of this book of his. It's obvious, he has been watching the discussions.

    Now what was profound, was that the idea of the landscape was a mathematical construct. If you were so concerned about the idea of the landscape, then why would anyone with "math skills" reject the landscape? If the day is announcing itself in blog voices and now say hmmm.... with interest, I see that it is becoming more acceptable?

    If you did not see the "hills and valleys" for what they were, then why would you reject what was leading in terms of the finiteness of Mandelstam, and then say, there was no more future in regards to where math had left off?

    This is Lee Smolin's downfall I think when discussing the issue of Polchinski's concepts, reitereated with regards to Lee's book, and the "ventures of mathematics" as it has been spelted out and had pointed towards the landscape issues.

    This is where Peter Woit made his mistake as well.

    I accept that a lot of people don't like it. But that's not the point in terms of mathematical development, as it had been argued by Polchinski, against his reading and comments in regards to Lee Smolin's book.

    See:The First Three Microseconds

    This infomration has lead me to insights about the landscape that had missed most people, even those who are well educated. My point above is in regards to Mandelstam, and the arguments against Lee by Jacques distiller, was important from this aspect.

    Reject the notion of the topological figures in relation to the landscape issue, and what is left? Yes, Lee's and Peter Woits ideas about the landscape, which is not finished. Which is leading with concepts, by mathematical deduction.

    Can't always answer in post responses, but please let me know that you are visiting? :)

    My son and I are starting our foundation. I write when I can, but read in the hours without our electricity and by battery alone.

    Sunday, March 25, 2007

    Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

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


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

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

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

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

    Whence began this journey and revolution?

    LEONARD SUSSKIND:

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


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

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

    The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

    Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

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

    Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

    Unravelling String Theory

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



    See more here



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

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

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

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

    Friday, March 23, 2007

    Solidification of Geometrical Presence

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

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



    Buckyballs

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


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

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

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



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

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

    Allotropes



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

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




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

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

    Thursday, December 14, 2006

    Against Symmetry

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





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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

    Confronting A Position Adopted By Lee Smolin


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

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

    Jacques Distler :

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

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


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

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


    Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

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


    Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

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

    Sunday, October 29, 2006

    The Higg's Boson and Memory?

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


    If Plato Had thought "the new born" was not really such a "blank slate" then what did he mean exactly? If we could remember, "in what form" would these memories have manifested?

    The origins of thought would have found that what existed before, had to make it's way into what we are doing today? So is it really "lost" since we cannot and do not remember what was before? Or, is it possible to remember?

    Not many can see in this abstract way, or have considered how a photon might have traveled? Sure they have understood satellites and the travel through space, but have they consider this in context of CSL lensing? Sean put up a link yesterday that had me seeing how such a travel over distance might have had some photon's strange journies in context of such lensings.


    So how does this lump of clay ever take with it all that was before. Is it just a slight shift in our tonal? What was "not apparent before" is now very much a a part of our views of nature now. Before, it was "very pleasing," and now, it is "still very pleasing" that our cosmological views have been extended some how? :)

    Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.


    Of course we always look for directions as to which way we'll have to look for things to understand just what our perceptions reveal and what is the basis for our thoughts as to the nature of the universe?

    For example, theory says that Higgs particles are matter particles, but in most respects the Higgs behaves more like a new force than like a particle. How can this be? In truth, the Higgs is neither matter nor force; the Higgs is just different.


    So it is never easy for me to follow from one thought to the next.

    Imagine, the "molasses" here for a minute. What gives mass it's shape while we cannot discern the very beginning as an asymmetrical valuation? Based on the notion, that there was a simpler time entropically, how do we know what is discretely measured?

    Why the discrete measure and it's shape?



    New measurements of top quark mass at Fermilab have revised estimates for the mass of the Higgs boson.
    Scientists believe that the Higgs boson, named for Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, who first theorized its existence in 1964, is responsible for particle mass, the amount of matter in a particle. According to the theory, a particle acquires mass through its interaction with the Higgs field, which is believed to pervade all of space and has been compared to molasses that sticks to any particle rolling through it. The Higgs field would be carried by Higgs bosons, just as the electromagnetic field is carried by photons.

    "In the Standard Model, the Higgs boson mass is correlated with top quark mass," says Madaras, "so an improved measurement of the top quark mass gives more information about the possible value of the Higgs boson mass."

    According to the Standard Model, at the beginning of the universe there were six different types of quarks. Top quarks exist only for an instant before decaying into a bottom quark and a W boson, which means those created at the birth of the universe are long gone. However, at Fermilab's Tevatron, the most powerful collider in the world, collisions between billions of protons and antiprotons yield an occasional top quark. Despite their brief appearances, these top quarks can be detected and characterized by the D-Zero and CDF experiments.


    So yes there are these experiments that lead us to think about how the universe came into being? All these things that we see in the universe, are they so very different from every other point in space. How is it's particle nature revealed and we have gained much from discerning the quantum dynamically nature of what, "just is."

    What just "is?"

    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.


    I mean it's vague to me that such a memory could have been transferred to other things. The Universe has become very large, and entropically complex? Our universe of discrete things, have become complex in discretized values. How would we have ever seen the "purity of thought manifest" if we did not delve ever deeper into the nature of things?

    In 2000 the same analogy was used to establish the robustness of the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations in inflationary models. This analogy is currently stimulating research for experimenting Hawking radiation. Finally it could also be a useful guide for going beyond the semi-classical description of black hole evaporation.

    Friday, September 29, 2006

    Historical Approach of the Sand Reckoner

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


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


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

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

    Anyway


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


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

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

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



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


    About Dimension

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

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


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



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

    The beginning of the Universe?

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



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

    See:


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


  • A Perspective on Powers of Ten?



  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006

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

    The Theory of Everything


    Prof. Robert B. Laughlin


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Thursday, September 07, 2006

    Quantum Hall Effect

    This article below was set in motion by Stefan's article,"Pencils, Black Holes, and the Klein Paradox", at Backreaction. B will have to offer her perspective on the blackhole analogy. I offer mine.:)



    The fractional quantum Hall effect continues to be influential in theories about topological order.


    It is interesting to see the interconnecting links of recent between the different blogs on the internet in terms of what information is being relayed back and forth without some understading of what is going on?

    Number theory is the type of math that describes the swirl in the head of a sunflower and the curve of a chambered nautilus. Bhargava says it's also hidden in the rhythms of classical Indian music, which is both mathematical and improvisational. He sees close links between his two loves -- both create beauty and elegance by weaving together seemingly unconnected ideas.

    As part of a Morning Edition series exploring the intersection of art and science, NPR's Richard Harris reports on the beauty of mathematics, its ties to art -- and the man who straddles both worlds.


    So you learn to see relations where one might not of have before. "Computerization techniques" that would help us understand new ways in which transmit information?

    An Ultimate Theory in Physics?

    Shahn Majid's research explores the world of quantum geometry, on the frontier between pure mathematics and the foundations of theoretical physics. He uses mathematical structures from algebra and category theory to develop ideas concerning the structure of space and time. His research philosophy drives a search for the right mathematical language for a unified expression for the ideas of quantum physics, founded on the notion of non-commutative geometry

    While above I may have introduced the particular interest of Majid's in terms of beats in nature and number counting, it is with some understanding that "poetical desire" can have come "other issues" which rise up from schemas of nature?

    The subject in its modern form has also been connected with developments in several different fields of both pure mathematics and mathematical physics. In mathematics these include fruitful interactions with analysis, number theory, category theory and representation theory. In mathematical physics, developments include the quantum Hall effect, applications to the standard model in particle physics and to renormalization in quantum field theory, models of spacetimes with noncommuting coordinates. Noncommutative geometry also appears naturally in string/M-theory. The programme will be devoted to bringing together these different streams and instances of noncommutative geometry, as well as identifying new emerging directions


    So I mean if you are into the Riemann Hypothesis, you might wonder how such patterns sought by Ulam would have been of interest to people like Robert Laughlin and his ideas on "emergence." What "number systems" would arise from the first principle?

    In a Pascalian sense" you might understand this now, as isssuing from some inherent "ordered" chaos?

    Ulam's interest was on a high energy event( we know what that was, don't we?)? So what order can come out of such chaos?




    This is the essence of the problems with transmitting information while paying witness to the origins of the math brought forward to the mind's eye from an understanding of the "birthing of new universes?"

    Update:

    I never saw his "site topic Monday, September 04, 2006 until yesterday "after" constructing my post.

    Links to "previous posts linked in quantum hall effect" should give some idea about previous knowledge regardless of PP Cook's posting. Just wanted to set that straight.

    See:

    P. P. Cooks, "To Commute or not to Commute..."

    Friday, August 11, 2006

    At What "Point" does the Universe Make itself Known?

    According to the basic laws of physics, every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation corresponds to a specific amount of energy. The NIST/ILL team determined the value for energy in the Einstein equation, E = mc2, by carefully measuring the wavelength of gamma rays emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms.


    This, was encapsulated in a "point before time and space(?), that explodes again into your mind, as if some universe coming into being? How could that "be?"

    Like a bubble perhaps, or like a universe that has reached it furthest reaches, collapses again, and where does the universe lead us, but back to "this point"?? Some event that has unleashed it's potential and spoke about the geometrics of, and we found that it lead back to "the time" where the universe again began?

    When primary cosmic rays collide, what allowed the secondary particles to emerge? What is cerenkov light emitted? ICECUBE.



    They can trace back the gamma rays to the original source? The gamma rays are not affected by the magnetic field? This allows them to trace back the history of the particles back to the original source? How do "they know" where it came from?

    There was a time when the realization existed that particle creation had no relation to what the universe did in it's first three minutes of Weinberg? Now, it has become Microseconds? Are you convinced now?

    Let's assume that you are, so what allowed us to go back to what any moment could be produced given the right set of circumstances? That what is out there is is also inside?

    We had to be able to go back to the beginning of the universe did we not?

    So what use models serve if they can not be applied at many levels and now we see the trail of young theorists move to other realms, sociologically driven, where their abilities are better used on wall street or the likes, because it just didn't make sense anymore to try and delve into it.

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


    Or to see the science used in a destruction of a kind, that it's reverberation magnified tens of times, could be used from one plane load? Laughlins "exemplified page" is forever haunting in what these magnifications can become from a condensed matter theorist point of view?

    So how do ideas enter the mind? You create the Blank slate and endeavour to write the formula for aspects of creation? What "energy values" are these?


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



    But it's more then that, to think that the energy chaotic, is in it's extremes, would have no "organizational skills" to begin to manifest itself in it's very guises, that one might ask, "what use any energy put too?"

    So this becomes the pattern? A Pattern of destruction?

    No, not always. It can become a pattern for peace.:) A balance found(?) of the exchange, that "things" could be in a state of "becoming?" Allows yo to move inthe world in a different way. You can grow, as you extend the antenna out there, and allow what is out there to come inside?

    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.