Showing posts with label Loop Quantum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loop Quantum. Show all posts

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.

    Saturday, December 02, 2006

    Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

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

    I was lead into this subject of Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin's book called, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." As a lay person reading what our scientist's have to say, I have a vested interest in what can start one off and find, that changes are being made to the synopsis first written. Did I understand his position correctly from the very beginning? I'll have to go back over my notes.

    But with this format now I have the opportunity to...ahem... get it..directly from the horses mouth(no disrespect intended and written based on knowing how to read horses). As I said, I tried early on to see how the situation of string theory could be refuted. I "instigated" as a comparative front for Lubos Motl and Peter Woit to speak from each of their positions. I had to disregard "the tones" set by either, as to the nature of whose what and how ignorant one might be, and comparatively, one might be to intelligent design? To get "some evidence" of why string theory might not be such a good idea?

    Now I believe this is a more "civil situation" that such a format has been proposed and that Lee Smolin can speak directly. As well as, "further information" supplied to counter arguments to Lee's position.

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

    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.

    Just a reminder about my skills. While I do things like carpetry, plumbing, electrical, I do not call myself a Carpenter, a Plumber or a Electrician. Nor shall I ah-spire to be more then I'm not, as I am to old this time around.

    Greg Kuperberg:
    The string theorists are physicists and this is their intuition. Do you want physical intuition or not?

    Okay, Smolin is also a physicist and his intuition is radically different from that of the strings theorists. So who is right?

    Yet, least I not read these things, can I not decipher "the jest" while it not being to technical? Shall I call it a Physicists intuition or I will only call my intuition what it is?

    Jacques Distler:
    When most people (at least, most quantum field theorists) use the term “finiteness,” they are referring to UV finiteness.

    While the things above talked about from Jacques are served by hindsight, "the jest" follows what comes after this point.

    The Jest of the Problem?

    My present research concerns the problem of topology changing in string theory. It is currently believed that one has to sum over all string backgrounds and all topologies in doing the functional integral. I suspect that certain singular string backgrounds may be equivalent to topology changes, and that it is consequently only necessary to sum over string backgrounds. As a start I am investigating topology changes in two-dimensional target spaces. I am also interested in Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although much has been learned, some basic questions remain, and I hope to be able at least to understand the simpler of these questionsStanley Mandelstam-Professor Emeritus Particle Theory

    Gina has asked questions in context of "academic excellence" in relation to what is being seen in relation to string theory. Of course we thank Clifford for providing the format for that discussion.

    The Trouble With Physics,” by Lee Smolin, Index page 382, Mandelstam, Stanley, and string theory finiteness, pages 117,187, 278-79, 280, 281, 367n14,15

    For reference above.

    I raised 16 points that I felt Lee’s arguments were not correct or problematic. This is an academic discussion and not a public criticism, and I truly think that such critique can be useful, even if I am wrong on all the 16 points.

    Three of my 16 points were on more technical issues, but I feel that I can understand Lee’s logical argument even without understanding the precise technical nature of “finiteness of string theory” (I do have a vague impression of what it is.) I think that my interpretation of this issue is reasonable and my critique stands.

    I find this interesting based on what information has been selected to counter the arguments that Lee Smolin used to support his contentions about what is being defined in string theory.

    Stanley Mandelstam Professor Emeritus Research: Particle Physics
    My research concerns string theory. At present I am interested in finding an explicit expression for the n-loop superstring amplitude and proving that it is finite. My field of research is particle theory, more specifically string theory. I am also interested in the recent results of Seiberg and Witten in supersymmetric field theories.

    So of course, here, I am drawn to the content of his book and what is the basis of his argument from those four pages. I hope my explanation so far summarizes adequately. For the lay person, this information is leading perspective as to the basis of the argument.

    Lee Smolin:
    Perturbative finiteness is a major element of the claim of string theory as a potential theory of nature. If it is not true then the case for string theory being a theory of nature would not be very strong.

    -Perturbative finiteness has not been proven. There is evidence for it, but that evidence is partial. There is a complete proof only to genus two, which is the second non-trivial term in an infinite power series, each term of which has to be finite. The obstacles to a complete proof are technical and formidable; otherwise we would certainly have either a proof or a counterexample by now. There is some progress in an alternative formulation, which has not yet been shown to be equivalent to the standard definition of string theory.

    -This is not an issue of theoretical physicists rigor vrs mathematical rigor. There is no proof at either level. There is an intuitive argument, but that is far from persuasive as the issue is what happens at the boundaries of super-moduli space where the assumption of that argument breaks down. In the formulation in which there is a genus two result it is not clear if there is an unambiguous definition of the higher order terms.

    Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

    It should be known here and here that all along I have been reacting to Lee Smolin's new book. The title itself should have given this away?

    The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

    So of course knowing the basis of my thought development is a "good idea" as the links show what spending our dollars can do, having bought what our good scientist Lee Smolin has written.

    There is a little "tit for tat" going on right now, but I think the point has been made sufficiently clear as to where Gina's thoughts in regards to the points on Finiteness is being made beyond 2?

    In these lectures, recent progress on multiloop superstring perturbation theory is reviewed. A construction from first principles is given for an unambiguous and slice-independent two-loop superstring measure on moduli space for even spin structure. A consistent choice of moduli, invariant under local worldsheet supersymmetry is made in terms of the super-period matrix. A variety of subtle new contributions arising from a careful gauge fixing procedure are taken into account.

    Yes I think I have to wait now to see if the discussion can now move beyond the first three points raised? Hopefully Lee will respond soon?

    How do you fight sociology

    Because this by any of the leaders of string theory. it was left to someone like me, as a quasi "insider" who had the technical knowledge but not the sociological commitment, to take on that responsibility. And I had done so because of my own interest in string theory, which I was working on almost exclusively at the time. Nevertheless, some string theorists regarded the review as a hostile act.

    The trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin, Page 281

    I have discovered one of Lee Smolin's objection to a string theorist. They are only craftsman, and not seers.

    Tuesday, November 28, 2006

    Breakthrough Propulsion Physics?

    Shuttle Main Engine Test Firing-1981-A remote camera captures a close-up view of a Space Shuttle Main Engine during a test firing at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi.
    Spacecraft propulsion is used to change the velocity of spacecraft and artificial satellites, or in short, to provide delta-v. There are many different methods. Each method has drawbacks and advantages, and spacecraft propulsion is an active area of research. Most spacecraft today are propelled by heating the reaction mass and allowing it to flow out the back of the vehicle. This sort of engine is called a rocket engine.

    While the topic here is about how travel is possible, it is the idea that "new physics" can some how propelled forward the mass in space to do the things of travel necessary.

    In addition, a variety of hypothetical propulsion techniques have been considered that would require entirely new principles of physics to realize. To date, such methods are highly speculative and include

    Within the definitions of the literature it is then possible to deduce what is required? So this saves me the time while speaking to the new physics, of having to explain the rudimentary understandings of how I can leaped forward. No less, the idea of the "thought experiment" that is put in front of us that we create the dialogue necessary, with or without impute, to advance one's thinking.

    Credit: NASA CD-98-76634 by Les Bossinas. Artist's depiction of a hypothetical Wormhole Induction Propelled Spacecraft, based loosely on the 1994 "warp drive" paper of Miguel Alcubierre.


    The term breakthrough propulsion refers to concepts like space drives and faster-than-light travel, the kind of breakthroughs that would make interstellar travel practical.

    For a general explanation of the challenges and approaches of interstellar flight, please visit the companion website: Warp Drive: When? The Warp-When site is written for the general public and uses icons of science fiction to help convey such notions. This website, on the other hand, is intended for scientists and engineers.

    How is a Blackhole Determined?

    PLato:Remember the "closed loop process?"

    From the "blackhole horizon" what value would, "to e or not to e" speak too, if "one" was falling into the blackhole and "one" was out? Are they separated? What is our "state of the universe" then?

    A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole".

    IN the process of discovering the gravitational variances in space of "gravitational effects" how is it that a spaceship could become sensitive to the variations of that travel and slow down, if it did not have a way in which to calculate these fluctuations?

    There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light, where time and space literally come to end. It’s at this point, inside this fantastic riddle, that black holes exert their sway over the cosmos … and our imaginations.

    There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light? So I have to re-educate some people so that they understand the limtiations that have been applied to current thinking, by what is currently out there in terms of what we know about blackholes. So breaking from of those limitation on perspective is very important with what we know now. How we can determine a blackhole.

    So here to then is a wider perspective about lagrangain perspective of space that is needed in the understanding of travel in space. Implications of ways and means to determine the needed velocities of the space craft to move forward within context of determinations of gravitational influences.

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

    So while our imagination is being captured by this "gravitational concentration" in the cosmos what use to discern the nature of the "closed loop process" if we did not consider the "thought experiment" of Susskind as I have spoken to it in the last couple of posts?

    Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

    The first order of business here is that we use methods based on the understanding of the "link of entanglement" around what is inside the blackhole as a measure? What that photon is telling us in relation to the gravitational considerations influencing the space craft? IN this way, "calibration technique" allows for variances in the determination of what we see in the perspective of the cosmos as a vital differential understanding of that pathways through space.

    IN "weak field understanding" we know the loop process is symmetric? Also, if gravity is combined to electromagnetism, what value the photon for determination if we had not understood this relation to gravitation effects in the cosmos? So this process then is understood in terms of developing the means to travel in space that was before not so easily determined(escape velocities for mass in space), but has now been shattered by moving beyond the paradigms of previous thought processes?

    This is the benefit of thinking "thought experiments" to progress any idea. Now what has been written here, is it right or wrong?

    The Propulsion System?

    AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers

    Also no where have I revealed the propulsion system need in order for the space craft to exceed the gravitational variances within the cosmos

    Gamma Ray production in particle creation?

    The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, is a multinational collaboration of physicists trying to detect powerful cosmic rays from outer space. The energy of the particles here is above 1019eV, or over a million times more powerful than the most energetic particles in any human-made accelerator. No-one knows where these rays come from.

    Such cosmic rays are very rare, hitting an area the size of a football field once every 10 000 years. This means you need an enormous 'net' to catch these mysterious ultra high energy particles. The Auger project will have, when completed, about 1600 detectors.

    Understanding the collision process within context of our own planet, and what information is received from other events within the cosmos allows us "to rebuild" what happens no less then what "LIGO operations" and it's gathering techniques, allows us from the complexity of the information to a thing of beauty?

    The H.E.S.S. telescope array represent a multi-year construction effort by an international team of more than 100 scientists and engineers

    So how shall we identify such sources if we had not considered the "light house effect?"

    Black Hole-Powered Jet of Electrons and Sub-Atomic Particles Streams From Center of Galaxy M87

    Friday, November 24, 2006

    Status of "Warp Drive"

    Time is of your own making;
    its clock ticks in your head.
    The moment you stop thought
    time too stops dead.
    Angelus Silesius

    The plot created here in this post in this fictional sense(?) so that I too may deal with the issues of time travel?

    Of course time travel is on my mind for reason that some may not suspect, yet it is with "past history" that we are "embedded with knowledge" from our past attempts. From these, if knowledge is acquired for each soul, then how is it that it sat for for the day to be awaken properly? Where did we begin?

    Two main difficulties arise from Plato's view of Transmigration. First, Plato says that we have knowledge of universals because of the experiences of our souls in past lives. However, whence comes the knowledge of the first soul? In purely Platonic theory, it must have had no knowledge at all, and hence Plato's concept of transmigration as the basis for innate knowledge fails. A second difficulty lies in explaining the varying, and especially the apparently increasing number of incarnated souls over history.

    So this knowledge is somewhere? Is it as if we move our focus on the Tonal, and we see differently, or, that by profound shifts in our perspective on model apprehension, that we see anew?

    Sir Isaac Newton

    If we had been changed then, had it been from the Tabula Rusa being blank?

    It is as if, "the cosmologist has been detained," bewteen the beginning and end of this universe, yet, shall not ask, "what is it" and, "how did it begin?" That it's very existance it came from nothing, thus, shall never end? How illogical is this?

    Plato:One of the things that appeared so strange to me was in how we could look at gravitational variances with scientific means. As we know now, this is being accomplished in ways that test the minds imagination, as to how we would apply these features here to earth, and beyond. Timespeak

    How "warped the mind then," to create such a controversy. Use this to exemplify a point about creativity? Have I some how degraded "the wording" to show that "what is possssible" is indeed the imaginary mind that likes to play tricks, whilst it developes this whole new train of thought? Simultaneity?

    Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)

    Sir William Shakespeare

    Sir Francis Bacon, disguised by "Shakespearean thought," was just an actor of "creativity," portraying a role of a political man? Yet, the thoughts extended, as if this man was in another place and time? Is it that easy? This story true?

    Plato:Creativity? Ways in which we allow "information" to travel through? Play the game? Allow "ingenuity" as the "poetic river that flows" to the surface on you, from everything, or, the blank slate?

    Is it useless knowledge then or that science requires this blank slate to allow us to deliver on the basis of science? Each starting position, that we write clearly and hence know that from that time forward, what is being built upon?

    Time travel

    Plato:Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?Tunneling in Faster then Light

    Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

    The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

    One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.

    So previous(Tunneling in Faster than Light) to this post, I tried to show where my thinking was currently held in regards to anti-particle/particle, as examples of what is happening in LHC.

    Also, I cleared the air of what was held in mind in terms of the Cerenkov radiation transported ahead of, in faster then light medium capabilities as the blue light. This does not remove my speculations in terms of what is happening in probing the "perfect fluid" and the dissipative effect of microstate blackhole creation. What happens in that moment of high energy collision processes.

    Wednesday, November 22, 2006

    Tunnelling in Faster then Light

    Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

    Omega=the actual density to the critical density

    If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?

    Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

    Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?

    A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

    That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.

    So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.

    Getty Images
    Although a 1916 paper by Ludwig Flamm from the University of Vienna [4] is sometimes cited as giving the first hint of a wormhole, "you definitely need hindsight to detect it," says Matt Visser of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Einstein and Rosen were the first to take the idea seriously and to try to accomplish some physics with it, he adds. The original goal may have faded, but the Einstein-Rosen bridge still pops up occasionally as a handy solution to the pesky problem of intergalactic travel.

    There are two cases in which the thoughts about faster then light particles are created and this is the part where one tries to get it right so as not to confuse themselves and others.


    So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

    Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?

    Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

    So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

    Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

    Tunneling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

    The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunneling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

    Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

    "We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

    "This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."

    Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?

    This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

    A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature

    Plasmas and Bose condensates

    So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

    This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

    This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

    The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).

    So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

    What are the main goals of the LHC?-
    The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.

    It was once thought that antimatter was a perfect 'reflection' of matter - that if you replaced matter with antimatter and looked at the result in a mirror, you would not be able to tell the difference. We now know that the reflection is imperfect, and this could have led to the matter-antimatter imbalance in our Universe.

    The strongest limits on the amount of antimatter in our Universe come from the analysis of the diffuse cosmic gamma-rays arriving on Earth and the density fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. If one asumes that after the Big Bang, the Universe separated somehow into different domains where either matter or antimatter was dominant, then at the boundaries there should be annihilations, producing cosmic gamma rays. In both cases the limit proposed by current theories is practically equivalent to saying that there is no antimatter in our Universe.

    So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

    Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

    So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

    It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.

    Wednesday, September 20, 2006

    CNO and the Law of Octaves

    "String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture."Publisher's Weekly

    As we keep going here let's remeber to keep our eyes open, eh?:)

    Okay just so you know Harmonics "do" color my world.

    The CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen) cycle is one of two fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium, the other being the proton-proton chain. While the proton-proton chain is more important in stars the mass of the sun or less, theoretical models show that the CNO cycle is the dominant source of energy in heavier stars. The CNO process was proposed in 1938 by Hans Bethe.

    Whilst I struggle, it is with the recent post it has become clear that the roles of choice in the expression of our universe has met up with the logic of "Anthropic reasoning?"


    I found the email debate between Smolin and Susskind to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it mixes several issues. The Anthropic Principle (AP) gets mixed up with their other agendas. Smolin advocates his CNS, and less explicitly loop quantum gravity. Susskind is an advocate of eternal inflation and string theory. These biases are completely natural, but in the process the purported question of the value of the AP gets somewhat lost in the shuffle. I would have liked more discussion of the AP directly

    Up to this point this distance was kept because I really did not understand the full scope of what is being implied here, from either of Susskind or Smolin. I do not want to cloud the issue, but by association with either point of view, it seems I am destined to be called archetyphically, one or the other?

    The triple alpha process is highly dependent on carbon-12 having a resonance with the same energy as helium-4 and beryllium-8 and before 1952 no such energy level was known. It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who used the fact that carbon-12 is so abundant in the universe (and that our existence depends upon it - the Anthropic Principle), as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance. Fred suggested the idea to nuclear physicist Willy Fowler, who conceded that it was possible that this energy level had been missed in previous work on carbon-12. After a brief undertaking by his research group, they discovered a resonance near to 7.65 Mev.

    I had always remained at a distance with this topic only to find that I had been expressing parts of it in one way or another by assuming model implications by association. Either with Susskind or Smolin with the debate ongoing.

    Well as Plato ,I am a little different in my assumption based on a model that sees developmental attitiude towards music in ways that we had never considered before? Sound? Or, had thought arose in minds from other sources, whose philsophical based was always hidden in the mysterium of some secret given to mankind on it's journey to remembering who we are.

    So I left stories of the deluge of mankind and the secrets to be maintained in model symbologies, that would remain with us for many a day, without ever lossing it's structure.

    Okay. I've gotten a litlle extreme with PLato's name use, but in developing a heirarcheal thinking of that "ray of creation," I was always more impressed with how one may see the "elemental discernation of reality" in such photonic expressions and spectrum analysis, that matter based defintions were somehow holding the mind to matter based thinking. I did not want to be constricted by this. By emotions either. By mental impediments to clear mind and thinking.

    So by association I have been cast to the archetypal forms and shapes of thinking minds, either on one side or the other? By speaking my mind on the nature of music, that I would quickly be dispelled to crackpottery, by oneside or the other?

    “Superstring theory forms a vast and impressive mathematical framework and makes enormous claims. But where is the experimental evidence? What if your intuition tells you that this elaborate construction, shrouded by the sweet vagueness of quantum mechanics, cannot represent the complete truth? Lee Smolin is keeping his eyes open, asks sharp questions, and offers his delightful insights as a critical insider.” Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, University of Utrecht

    Casting Stones

    Hey! If you can apply it to each other, then why not I, or any other, to all of the society of scientists like Peter Woit or a Sean Carroll who belong, that they could on the substance of who drives/speak about the "philosophy of life?" Speak about each other or others that would speak in regards to the concepts(pulled all the way back from "a theory")justifing the new views.

    Baby Universes

    Looking at Smolin's "baby universes" it became evident then that my views on blackholes would indeed serve as the repository of "events," that it would follow in my line of reasoning, to present "new physics." Whilst I did not know, supporting the road taken by Smolin.

    INdeed, I have always had a soft spot for his views, because of the clarity of the reasoning behind Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.

    So, where am I now in my thinking, that I should be held accountable to Susskind's views, and find that such views speak towards the photonic expressions I have about spiritual life? The roads that go beyond the basis of "Carbon based reasoning" as the predominant value of this universe? Maybe it is a "cycle in time" of this universe that the "laws in the octave of creation" wait for new energy to be put into, "raising" the octave our thinking?

    So by where, and how, such injections in the realization, that the balance of these two thinking minds shall we be elevated to a "real value" in society? One that moves towards a spiritual development, whilst breaking the shackles of a "carbon based society?"

    Whose Societal value is now aninflationary rate which has been set by the "blackgold" of human kind's dependancies.

    MIT researchers have discovered that certain molecules can attach themselves to metallic carbon nanotubes without interfering with the nanotubes' exceptional ability to conduct electricity. At left, the high conductance state has two molecular orbitals, shown in green. Some molecules even let the nanotube switch between highly conductive, left, and poorly conductive (right, with one red molecular orbital), creating the potential for new applications. (Image courtesy of Marzari Lab)

    Shall it be freedom in computerization first, or just another means to hold society to the machinations of our dependancies, and the forever "sleeping state" we like to lay back down in, afer such "revelations" have become use too?

    So the process of discovery is precendent/predictive on the developing what we need in terms of the "information age" that we will all awaken to the truth about what?


  • BigFoot: The Anomalistic Reality?
  • Sunday, September 10, 2006

    Window on the Universe

    Michio Kaku:
    I like to compare it to wandering in the desert, and stumbling over a tiny pebble. When we push away the sand, we find that this "pebble" is actually the tip of a gargantuan pyramid. After years of excavation, we find wondrous hieroglyphics, strange tunnels and secret passageways. Every time we think we are at the bottom stage, we find a stage below it. Finally, we think we are at the very bottom, and can see the doorway.

    One day, some bright, enterprising physicist, perhaps inspired by this article, will complete the theory, open the doorway, and use the power of pure thought to determine if string theory is a theory of everything, anything, or nothing.

    Only time will tell if Einstein was correct when he said, "But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

    An Intermediate Polar Binary System. Credit & Copyright: Mark Garlick

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

    Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin

    Now you have to understand something here that the views of those who push our perceptions have gone even further then this, in how we look at the universe. I am showing you work that was progressing from understanding and bringing together what was going on then in 2004, to show you indeed that such an progression has taken place.

    I also point out where "Conformal Field Theory" has planted itself, as we look at the images of Bekenstein bound. Such determinations and the roads taken by Strominger point specifically to what we can measure and what we have yet to measure. This did nt relegate any theoretcial view to the "garbage dump" but allowed visionaries to see beyond the SUN/Earth relation in Lagrangian views.

    ISCAP will demonstratively help you "adjust your view" in a cosmological re-adjustment that is necessary. Not only from Glast views that arose from some fantasy, but culminates today in the use of a scientific device(calorimeter) for such measures.

    In Gamma Ray detection and the Early Universe I point the direction in how Glast in it's preparation has given us new views on how we look at the universe.

    Dust torus around a supermassive black hole
    The Astrophysical Journal, in an article titled "Integral IBIS Extragalactic survey: Active Galactic Nuclei Selected at 20-100 keV", by L. Bassani et al., published on 10 January 2006 (vol. 636, pp L65-L68).

    Meanwhile, the NASA team is now planning to extend his search for hidden black holes further out into the universe. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. In a few more months we will have a larger survey completed with the Swift mission. Our goal is to push this kind of observation deeper and deeper into the universe to see black hole activity at early epochs. That’s the next great challenge for X-ray and gamma-ray astronomers," concluded Beckmann.

    Sun Earth Relation

    Part of devloping this vision was to see in ways that the Grace satelitte allowed you to see. In what use "climate functions were happening" within the earth's atmosphere how it was being regarded. Time clock functiosn are necessary views, even within this context and such mapping allowed you to see th eearth as it had never been seen before.

    No longer is it the surprize of the "first man to step out in space" to see such a blue marble and be aw struck by it's beauty. Now we have progressed in the same views that I allude too beyound what glast has done. Glast is your measure for now. Mine, and others, excell beyond this. As I show you why.

    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".

    Now how abtract these views that I will show you to think indeed "theoretcial surmize exists for the potential to push perception." Then, I will give you a real image to ponder, as satellites now progress through this superhighway.

    The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.

    In order to understand this sun/earth relation, you needed to see beyond what Glast had to impart to you. Yet, I do not say that it is irrelelavnt such experimental fashion to help us see even further. You understand this now?

    So now, I'll show you what the universe looks like.

    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.

    Now having this perspective in place, I am telling you what this does for perception, had I not carefully taken you through the roads to discovery. What the scale for gravity does for us in our estimation of what that universe actually looks like, when you put on glasses that change the very ideas of how we see.

    While you may see refracting of the pencil in a glass of water, you may also see that the grvaiational relation is also apparent inhow we look at the universe?

    If you do not think about the force carrier of the gravity then such extension to the standard model will only hold so much for you, while others in vision had been extended far beyond what you are accustom.

    A Better Researcher, Not a Cynic...Yessss?:)

    Sometimes there are wiser words then my own, to show what is "healthy and happy" with the research into quantum gravity? "A cynic" needs to wipe the spit from their chin, while recogizing what is really going on? We want a well balanced approach.

    Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

    Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

    Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

    Monday, June 12, 2006

    Harmonics will Color Your World?

    If you are a active participator of the very world around you, how is it, the makeup of high energy particle creations could not have included the standard model make up "harmonically described" does it not also apply to our "very thinking and conscious mind?" :)

    The Landscape “avant la lettre” by A.N. Schellekens

    The lowest harmonics correspond to the particles of the Standard Model, plus perhaps a few new particles. The higher harmonics correspond to an infinite series of particles that we can never observe, unless we can build a Planck Energy accelerator

    So of course the very basis of the thinking was drawn in my mind to the very subject enlisted by the minds of our predeccessors, to wonder, how this associative function could have ever been at the basis of how we may look at the World?

    Lee Smolin:
    In case it is not obvious, let me emphasize that harmonic oscillators are not relevent here, and can play no role in a background independent quantum theory, precisely because the division of a field into harmonic modes requires a fixed background metric. Thus, the physics of the problem REQUIRES an alternative quantization

    Of course it is never easy for me to understand what is going on while we have the issues of the background, versus, the non background, and this brings up the ole debates about positions and adoptives stances scientists have taken in regards to the "duality" of science's "quantum gravity" issues?

    Do I have a complete grasp of it. Absolutely not, while it forces me back to the issues, as to what is the basis of this "difference of opinion?"


    Leonnard Susskind and Lee Smolin

    While this is a conversation written by physicists for physicists, it should nonetheless be of interest for Edge readers as it's in the context of previous Edge features with the authors, it's instructive as to how science is done, and it's a debate that clarifies, not detracts.

    So by historically looking back, this is a reminder, about the ways in which science people are still looking at things, while holding their positions of thought today?

    SEan's meeting at PI, is a very interesting one becuase what it does is take the teacher and student scenario, and manifests the circumstance of clarification as to positions, while providing for a intuitive surge to present itself in the minds of it's participnats.

    So this debate then was held and it's relationship rememebered within this blog as to the basis of determination, about how we see the universe and all that is in it.

    Lee Smolin:

    The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

    The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

    So if someone saids that space is empty, I have a really hard time with it.


  • Quantum Harmonic Oscillator
  • Sunday, June 11, 2006

    Science Mathmatically Endowed?

    Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

    Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

    Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

    Sometimes this is taken to another level of actual "feuding," yet it is understood, that they are all working towards the same end?

    One might called it discretism(to experimentally justify-Glast induced) while the other a "continuity of sorts" when it comes to "energy valuations" analogistically based on some "KK tower of tree like" reasoning? :) Unfortunately, I lost the owner of this quote below.

    The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

    Encapsulate all things "gravitationally enhanced" while extending the framework of the standard model? I did not say, or others did not say, that we should discard all science thinking?

    The History of the Tree Rings

    Oh that fellow is not me either.

    I wanted to added some "time" to the idea of things holding the history of, whether it be "energy valuations" held in regards to the particle creations, but also to the idea of earth's history embedded in some "form of expression" here on earth?

    Why it's hard "macroscopically," not to look at the "ancient tree rings" and wonder about the history embedded? What are all those forces involved at that "specific ring time" doing?

    Thales of Miletus

    Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle."

    With "time variance recognition" in terms of the "relativity of thought," what said the "measures of Grace" are not suitable to what the history of time may have spoken to us in our undertanding of what "the climate" is doing today? But it is more then that.

    The Thalean excursion into the "primary principle" needed a science basis from which to work?:) What was "first Principle" and how did such a thing come into existance? We had to know what the "building blocks of matter" may be wrap in process? And of course the ancient thought of water going through it's phases, comes to mind.

    Distilliation, as a recognition of the energy, as well as the recognition of what phases the state of water is in?

    While it may be the search for the "emotive forces and inspirative surges" into the exploration of the human condition, it is well considered, that such distilliations is a delving into our makeup(realms of thought).

    An "intensity" of thought, that allows the seed bed to "bubble forth" into the recognition of what may arise from a simplier time? The "origins of time," as if brought forth "entropically designed" aspects of reality?

    The idea of circles just made sense to me, and how we interpret it. Now again, I must remind you of the layman status I have, and must be forgiven for the attempt to understand where we are currently going with science that is mathmatical endow, but has it's basis "in" the science of?

    I shall not forget:)

    Sunday, April 30, 2006

    Is the door open to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge?

    Nobody really thinks about the subtle perceptions that can make their way into the scientist's mind? Do they?

    While, I had talked about the quiet places we like to go to find that peace of mind, it might be different for each of us? Maybe for Clifford, it is the stream. Maybe for a Witten and his walks, the stream, as well?

    I spent a lot of years watching the subtle language that one can draw from the subconscious in dream time and to me such suttle obsersvation while fleeting, it always is a good idea to have a pen and paper alongside of you. Because, it happens that quick sometimes, that if you don't catch it, it sort of leaves the focal front to the tip of the tongue, as a puzzling thought about?

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

    Piercing the veil perhaps?

    Some of the things that seem to influence creativity, is the very idea of flow, and sitting by a river, "to think" might be one, or sitting high up on a mountain looking over the landscape, perhaps? Looking deep into "the space of the starry universe" above?

    Observation is really important I believe. If I were to say the "space between the heartbeat," it would not have been to unlikely, that the points between something, could ever be reduced to have it seem that our "quantum perception" has revealled a dynamical reality?

    Yes it's true. Energy calculations revealled information about the space we are living in? Nothing confusing about that. How silly then, that such a suttle perception as to the cards below would have passed our attention unsignificant?

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

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

    Attention and awareness is sometimes like listening "between the heartbeats?" Also if you look at that space what is it then filled with? I had a hard time of it trying to understand what nothing meant. It just does not make sense. Nothing is Nothing, and something out of Nothing is really a hard one to ponder for me so I had to see these dynamics working in ways that would tax the mind visually.

    So what did I do?

    Why is sound so important in the analogies of science now? Acoustically, what would the science of sound mean in our discriptions of the landscape? How does it change the way we thnk and do, and leads our thinking minds into some kind of entrainment that is rhythmetically enhanced? What does it do for the brain waves? Functional use, done in MRI study, along with the process of thinking?

    So I thought I should build a world that leads us to realize the reality we create. You think I did not think of the color of these situations? Look carefully at the ephemeral qualities of mind.

    You have to understand that the geometrical realization at the basis of my own experiences were derived from understanding the work of Carl Jung, and the mandalas he talked about.

    The way in which he might have divided up the circle according to the way our minds work. Having the anima and animus respectvely in both male and female, what really made me think of the topological function of the mind, are up top, on the enlightenment plate. Balance was needed to be struck and this is done automatically depending on our genders the balance would have been injected accordingly?

    If you think for one moment our past history is not important, what use to understand that we continue evolve within our consciousness?

    There are such designs from our expierence, to learn? You might have read my views on emotions and experience, and how we cannot change what has already happened, but we can meet the expeirence and change the attitude? That is within our power and ths is what sets up the future.

    Proceedings of Societies [Report on the Law of Octaves]
    Mr. JOHN A. R. NEWLANDS read a paper entitled "The Law of Octaves, and the Causes of Numerical Relations among the Atomic Weights."[41] The author claims the discovery of a law according to which the elements analogous in their properties exhibit peculiar relationships, similar to those subsisting in music between a note and its octave. Starting from the atomic weights on Cannizzarro's [sic] system, the author arranges the known elements in order of succession, beginning with the lowest atomic weight (hydrogen) and ending with thorium (=231.5); placing, however, nickel and cobalt, platinum and iridium, cerium and lanthanum, &c., in positions of absolute equality or in the same line. The fifty-six elements[42] so arranged are said to form the compass of eight octaves, and the author finds that chlorine, bromine, iodine, and fluorine are thus brought into the same line, or occupy corresponding places in his scale. Nitrogen and phosphorus, oxygen and sulphur, &c., are also considered as forming true octaves. The author's supposition will be exemplified in Table II., shown to the meeting, and here subjoined:--

    In this way I sort of felt that a calm mind and a calm heart, would allow one to see the discrepancies better. I do not know if that is the truth of it, but imagine our perception going deeper then it had ever gone before? There had to be some results, from listening?

    A Chladni plate consist of a flat sheet of metal, usually circular or square, mounted on a central stalk to a sturdy base. When the plate is oscillating in a particular mode of vibration, the nodes and antinodes set up form a complex but symmetrical pattern over its surface. The positions of these nodes and antinodes can be seen by sprinkling sand upon the plates;

    If one moment you thought of the Law of Octaves above, what place "the heart" to serve for our evolving consicousness?

    The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

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

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


  • Revolutions for Change

  • Path With a Heart