Pages

Showing posts with label Quark Stars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quark Stars. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Asymptotic freedom

 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.

***
In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes interactions between particles to become arbitrarily weak at energy scales that become arbitrarily large, or, equivalently, at length scales that become arbitrarily small (at the shortest distances).

Asymptotic freedom is a feature of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the quantum field theory of the nuclear interaction between quarks and gluons, the fundamental constituents of nuclear matter. Quarks interact weakly at high energies, allowing perturbative calculations by DGLAP of cross sections in deep inelastic processes of particle physics; and strongly at low energies, preventing the unbinding of baryons (like protons or neutrons with three quarks) or mesons (like pions with two quarks), the composite particles of nuclear matter.

Asymptotic freedom was discovered by Frank Wilczek, David Gross, and David Politzer who in 2004 shared the Nobel Prize in physics.

***


Bag Model of Quark Confinement

In dealing with the nature of quark confinement, one visualization is that of an elastic bag which allows the quarks to move freely around, as long as you don't try to pull them further apart. But if you try to pull a quark out, the bag stretches and resists.

***

Robert Laughlin:The true origin of these rules is the tendancy of natural systems to organize themselves according to collective principles. Many phenomena in nature are like pointillist paintings. Observing the fine details yields nothing but meaningless fact. To correctly understand the painting one must step back and view it as a whole. In this situation a huge number of imperfect details can add up to larger entities of great perfection. We call this effect in the physical world emergence.

Article linked in quote is only a snapshot now?  But links work to specific pages. Maybe you will find appropriate quote?:) So it is nice to see the memory of things if if you try to erase them.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

SuperCritical Fluid

What choice do I have but to quote myself.:)

At 11:47 AM, January 09, 2009, Blogger Plato said...
Superfluous is a mathematical construct for sure. Continuity, asked not from the condense matter theorist point of view as Jacque's remind, or, as Susskind speaks of Laughlin( was Susskind ever aware of Witten's statements?)


Edward WittenEdward Witten's Homepage

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.

Now I write this link and quote above because it set my own mind in motion, from that point. I began looking at the experiments and trying to derive something that was consistent in that process that would lead into that same logical conclusion that we are "seeing" and "not seeing" what happens.

Once we know that there is one de Sitter solution, it is easy to find many more of them by just changing the values of the fluxes. Sujay Ashok and Michael Douglas of Rutgers University have recently estimated the number of different solutions to be at least 10100, which indicates an extremely rich landscape with many mountains, valleys, oceans and even volcanoes. Each minimum-energy point represents a different universe, and the height of that point is the value of the cosmological constant for that universe. Viewing the solution this way, the probability that one of these universes has a cosmological constant that is as small as is indicated by current experiments is actually non-zero. See:The string-theory landscape


You must know there is a reason that I am showing these articles just to provide consideration and will put up some information here soon that deals with this point.

I would say I do and am always impressed by Lubo's candidness, so I do not derive any solution to this process and it remains a troubling aspect of my research. The counter argument I produce I had discovering along the way to provide an example in a comment section that deals with what I am saying to Zephir here in this blog entry, under the idea of the landscape. I would ask that Lubos look a little closer and speak to the idea of the Landscape even though under the tutelage of Tom Banks, he specifics his reluctance.

You must also know that I do not align myself with any current research model( disaster scenarios specific LHC.Org) other then to say I recognize facets "of this thinking from my own research" and that this presentation speaks to that. If there is no math involved then how can it represent the landscape in thinking? Logical conclusions, follow logical math processes in String theory?

Letting our minds be consoled with the understanding that cosmic particle collisions take place on earth is the point I am making about seeing "the sun in gamma" and understanding that such measures allow us to see this way. It also helps us to understand that such a location(microscopic blackholes) allows information to travel faster then light in the medium of earth, so that we understand that things can travel "through and tunnel." Information is conserved.

A supercritical fluid is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its thermodynamic critical point. It can diffuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid. Additionally, close to the critical point, small changes in pressure or temperature result in large changes in density, allowing many properties to be "tuned". Supercritical fluids are suitable as a substitute for organic solvents in a range of industrial and laboratory processes. Carbon dioxide and water are the most commonly used supercritical fluids, being used for decaffeination and power generation respectively.
See Also:
  • animated presentation describing what a supercritical fluid is


  • ***







    For explanation of these animations see: The behaviour of dense particle systems.

    From certain perspective, the AWT is extrapolation of free fermion models of string field theory to zero dimension. These models are nothing very new in physics, as some physicists have assumed, the strings are composed from more fundamental particles (so called preons) already. The one-dimensional strings are just the lowest number of dimensions, which the formal math can handle without problem, while avoiding the singularities. The concept of environment composed from zero dimensional particles is naturally singular from formal math perspective, so it cannot use it. It can be replaced by one-dimensional strings partially, but here's a technical problem: such approximation leads to
    landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions
    , so it's unusable from practical reasons. While from particle model of Aether is evident, such system enables the only way of it's compactification, leading to dynamic mesh of one-dimensional density fluctuations (i.e. "strings") naturally - so no assumption of strings, no assumption of relativity and quantum mechanics postulates is required here at all. By such way, the zero-dimensional approach follows the Occam razor criterion, which
    minimizes the number of postulates
    in theories.
    See:27789 - 09/18/08 04:08 AM Re: Aether Wave Theory [Re: zorro1]

    ***


    See Also:

  • Are Strings as Spacetime an Emergent Phenomena?

  • Lost in Translation

  • Birth By Approximization
  • Saturday, July 26, 2008

    Is the LHC Leaking Energy?

    This is not to bring "the doom and gloom of micro blackhole creation" into the picture although I do see that the QGP arrived at can bring other perspectives forward, that would relegate questions to my mind.

    For instance.

    So to be clear then, the QGP is relativistic. This I understood already.

    This to me was an indication of string theories work to bring a GUT to the process. Of course I speculate. I am also speculating on the "loss of energy" in the collider process.

    MIT physicists create new form of matter by Lori Valigra, Special to MIT News Office June 22, 2005

    "In superfluids, as well as in superconductors, particles move in lockstep. They form one big quantum-mechanical wave," explained Ketterle. Such a movement allows superconductors to carry electrical currents without resistance.

    To cool it, brings the "same process," as to the condition extended to the QGP? This is the point I am trying to make. If they are aligned?


    Now the quote above was addressed for clarification, and was caught by a spam filter. So the answer may or may not be forth coming.

    As a common folk, I am asking the question from one of ignorance, and would of course like an answer . It is not my wish to "propagate the untruthfulness" that any good scientist would wish to find deteriorates the quality of our current scientific endeavours as a society.

    Wednesday, February 14, 2007

    Strangelets and Strange Matter

    Of course I will point to some of the "inherent nature" that some scientists encounter as they develop the geometrical basis to "all the concepts could ever mean?" But first, "the journey."

    If not fundamental, though, quark nuggets zipping around the galaxy would still be an amazing addition. And perhaps even more amazing, in the end, than any technically strange - or just generally bizarre - particles burrowing through the ground would be the fact that the planet is no longer just a block of dumb rock in their path. It is an ever better wired planet, monitored and thought about in ever more ingenious ways; it is a datasphere ever more sensitive to its surroundings and its own processes, from flashes in the upper atmosphere to rumblings in the core. We have made it a planet that notices things. We have made it an observant Earth.


    You have to understand that if you are doing the research you want to know what "this avenue/hypothesis is to produce? It's almost as if "you understand" that the geometry exists under the "fundamental explanations of all concepts" as they are being developed. How a "different language" will be "put over top" of what is existing now schematically. We learn "to read" what has transpired from one who has more credentials then I, as I am only a student of the work.

    At the same time how did such thought processes develop outward to experimental validation in the real world? So you must understand, that I too understand this process. Not only from a "conceptual understanding" but from it's associative analysis one as well. It allow me to develop intuitively into what work is now transpiring at Cern.

    Strangelets are small fragments of strange matter. They only exist if the "strange matter hypothesis" is correct, in which case they are the true ground state of matter, and nuclei are actually metastable states with a very long lifetime.


    Odd behavior?



    A person most intense and preoccupied with the endeavours they work, will notice that time passes very quickly around them. It's as if the world bypassed them, as the focus had cost them the appearance or the attention needed to take care of themselves. "Should I care" as I think of them, whether their hair long or that their desk is pile high with paper?

    Careful least you disrupt the train of thought, that while busy, the underlings stand ready to act according to the plans of the teacher.

    I learnt over time to accept that even the academics will make allowances for the "uniqueness of individuals" even if that behaviour seems odd( sure call it detective work :0). To allow these attributes of the mind to go along with, the excellent and Nobel prize work that may be produced. Do you not think that Einstein in his last days was more concerned with the focus of his attentions then how dishevelled his hair was?

    Pierre Auger on Cosmic Rays

    "For in 1938, I showed the presence in primary cosmic rays of particles of a million Gigavolts -- a million times more energetic than accelerators of that day could produce. Even now, when accelerators have far surpassed the Gigavolt mark, they still have not attained the energy of 1020eV, the highest observed energy for cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays have not been dethroned as far as energy goes, and the study of cosmic rays has a bright future, if only to learn where these particles come from and how they are accelerated. You know that Fermi made a very interesting proposal that particles are progressively accelerated by bouncing off moving magnetic fields, gaining a little energy each time. In this way, given a certain number of "kicks," one could perhaps account for particles of 1018 -- 1020 electron volts. As yet, however, we have no good theory to explain the production of the very-high-energy particles that make the air showers that my students and I discovered in 1938 at Jean Perrin's laboratory on a ridge of the Jungfrau."

    -- Pierre Auger, Journal de Physique, 43, 12, 1982


    With introduction to the "Pierre Auger experiments" one learns to appreciate what the large Microscope can do. It allowed us to change the way in which we see cosmology working to include the "astrophysics approach to the description of the universe."

    Do you think cosmology devoid of new theoretical approaches, as we venture into the even more abstract "D Brane" world? That we should exclude, such theoretics as a language over top of the process of physics, to not think it is not delving into the world of the geometries involved as well as that physics?

    The microscopic process is much more diverse not only in terms of the language, but of how concepts can "cross over" into what we are doing with other approaches.

    Beam Trajectories



    This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks.


    Now of course I opened the beginning of this blog post with a article that asks you to consider the domain in which they have considered earth and it's value as a experimental process. The "strange hypothesis" to which I am talking about as a "cross over analogies" to the developmental process of Cern.

    The Pythagoreans were called mathematikoi, which means "those that study all"


    Amazing isn't it? That if one understood that there was a original context for all that we create, then what shall this context be? So science asks, that the universal language display the mathematics as a basis of all "conceptual frameworks spoken" that are developed. This is, "the right way of it" as I have watched the scientists as they have developed their theories.

    So we have this "microscopic view of reality" as the "power of ten" along with "this enlightenment" that taken over all our senses. What has happened now, as we venture out into the cosmos? What has happened when we've taken "theoretical positions" and adapted them to the processes of physics?

    Friday, December 29, 2006

    Wolf-Rayet star

    While I have started off with the definition of the Wolf-Rayet star, the post ends in understanding the aspects of gravity and it's affects, as we look at what has become of these Wolf-Rayet stars in their desimination of it's constituent properties.

    Similar, "in my thinking" to the expansion of our universe?


    Artist's impression of a Wolf-Rayet star
    About 150 Wolf-Rayets are known in our own Milky Way Galaxy, about 100 are known in the Large Magellanic Cloud, while only 12 have been identified in the Small Magellanic Cloud. Wolf-Rayet stars were discovered spectroscopically in 1867 by the French astronomers Charles Wolf and Georges Rayet using visual spectrometery at Paris Observatory.


    There are some thoughts manifesting about how one may have see this energy of the Blue giant. It's as if the examples of what began with great force can loose it's momentum and dissipate very quickly(cosmic winds that blow the dust to different places)?


    Illustration of Cosmic Forces-Credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Feild (STScI)
    Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that dark energy is not a new constituent of space, but rather has been present for most of the universe's history. Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate.


    What if the Wolf-Rayet star does not produce the jets that are exemplified in the ideas which begin blackhole creation. Is this part of blackhole development somehow in it's demise, that we may see examples of the 150 Wolf-Rayets known in our own Milky Way as example of what they can become as blackholes, or not.

    Quark to quark Distance and the Metric

    If on such a grand scale how is it thoughts are held in my mind to microscopic proportions may not dominate as well within the periods of time the geometrics develop in the stars now known as Wolf-Rayet. So you use this cosmological model to exemplify micro perspective views in relation to high energy cosmological geometrics.



    Plato:
    "Lagrangian views" in relation may have been one result that comes quickly to my mind. Taking that chaldni plate and applying it to the universe today.


    While I had in the previous post talked about how Lagrangian views could dominate "two aspects of the universe," it is not without linking the idea of what begins as a strong gravitational force to hold the universe together, that over time, as the universe became dominated by the dark energy that the speeding up of inflation could have become pronounced by discovering the holes created in the distances between the planets and their moons. Between galaxies.



    I make fun above with the understanding of satellites travelling in our current universe in relation to planets and moons, as well as galaxies. To have taken this view down to WMAP proportions is just part of what I am trying to convey using very simplistic examples of how one may look at the universe, when gravity dominated the universe's expansion versus what has happened to the universe today in terms of speeding up.


    LOOP-DE-LOOP. The Genesis spacecraft's superhighway path took it to the Earth-sun gravitational-equilibrium point L1, where it made five "halo" orbits before swinging around L2 and heading home.Ross


    If the distances between galaxies have become greater, then what saids that that the ease with which the speeding up occurs is not without understanding that an equilibrium has been attained, from what was once dominate in gravity, to what becomes rapid expansion?

    This book describes a revolutionary new approach to determining low energy routes for spacecraft and comets by exploiting regions in space where motion is very sensitive (or chaotic). It also represents an ideal introductory text to celestial mechanics, dynamical systems, and dynamical astronomy. Bringing together wide-ranging research by others with his own original work, much of it new or previously unpublished, Edward Belbruno argues that regions supporting chaotic motions, termed weak stability boundaries, can be estimated. Although controversial until quite recently, this method was in fact first applied in 1991, when Belbruno used a new route developed from this theory to get a stray Japanese satellite back on course to the moon. This application provided a major verification of his theory, representing the first application of chaos to space travel.

    Since that time, the theory has been used in other space missions, and NASA is implementing new applications under Belbruno's direction. The use of invariant manifolds to find low energy orbits is another method here addressed. Recent work on estimating weak stability boundaries and related regions has also given mathematical insight into chaotic motion in the three-body problem. Belbruno further considers different capture and escape mechanisms, and resonance transitions.

    Providing a rigorous theoretical framework that incorporates both recent developments such as Aubrey-Mather theory and established fundamentals like Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theory, this book represents an indispensable resource for graduate students and researchers in the disciplines concerned as well as practitioners in fields such as aerospace engineering.

    Saturday, October 14, 2006

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


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



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

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

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



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

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


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

    So bear with me if you can.


    Hi Plato,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Best, stefan



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

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

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

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

    Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So here's the thing.

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

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

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

    But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

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


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

    So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

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

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

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

    See:

  • Strangelets Do Not Exist?
  • The Fate of our Planet?
  • Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006
  • Thursday, July 27, 2006

    Alice and the Cosmic Ballet, Now Meet Higgins

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





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

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


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

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


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

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

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

    Did you know?

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Friday, June 16, 2006

    The Fate of our Planet?

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

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


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

    A Blackhole ate my Planet?


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

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



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



    See:
  • RHIC Animations and Multimedia


  • Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

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

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

    See:

  • Strangelets Do Not Exist?
  • Friday, May 19, 2006

    Writing Your Story of Creation?

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To e- or not to e+ :)

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



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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

    Yes, I did that too.

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

    The nature of our universe in continued expression?

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

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

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

    See:

  • Sonofusion - star in a jar
  • Tuesday, March 07, 2006

    Have we seen (strange) quark matter?

    Well the very idea that such a thing could exist, has been part of the evolving information I had been going through. To be lead to the understanding, of what new Physics would emerge fromm cosmological and collidial events. That there are indeed showers of particles with which such events will let us know cannot be ignored.

    First Principle needed to recognize "the very state" that things would arise from. For Robert Laughlin, a condense matter theorist, it didn't mater what you called these building blocks, but any discrete measure had to be recognized it's energy value and tragectories would it not? Hence, the particle shower from a known state of existance, where "first principle" would emerged.

    So, any attempt to ignore the possibility of what emerges, and the foundational perspective, put forth in theory, has to help the understandng of what happens when such events do happen, either, micro perspectively or cosmologically.

    Any attempts to say that the standard model is not inclusive in this design, would be detrimental to the very statement any mathematican would say against, that simply erasing any connection, would have been futile to their creditbility?

    Strange Quark Matter TheoryTamas S. Biro

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be the theoretical summary talk of the Strange Quark Matter 2003 conference. When I was alerted by the e-mail we all got, “prepare your transparencies”, I took this home-work exercise seriously. I have prepared quite a few pages before this conference. What can one know in advance, before listening to the talks?.

    First of all there is a general outline which a summary talk should follow. On the level of the basic theory one is supposed to conclude about the present status of the underlying theoretical concepts, one ought to emphasize important news, the novel aspects we are encountering, and finally it is useful to formulate in a possibly definite way, what our perspectives for further development are.


    So given the research that I had been going through, what is this strangelet subject that was developed, and I will post links that support the development of the fear with which such a thing arose. Was answered, by cosmological and collidial production of microstate blackhole events. Might the story and television series of blackholes been interrupted by such a dialogue, or had I furthered the plot for public consumption? To continue the fear?

    Would your scientist/mathematican friend tell you about such things and ways in which to expect information from experimental designs, as not leading into the desire of the essence of new physics?

    What began this assumption, was the idea that microstate blackholes were something of a danger, if we were to created them. That was the nightmare. The reality is, that this theoretically written state, is quite useful in terms of what can emerge from the idea of new physics, and had to include the standard model.

    To get to new physics you had to have the standard model as a basis, and to move from that point, any resulting shower and new information, like in ICECUBE, along with the historiy and research of neutrinos, points to what? Strangelets to what?

    Peter Woit dissassociated himself from that possibility, and if strings was to underly this view, what says, such advancements had not adhered to the demands of theoretcial proposition, that it now sees itself, as part and parcel of the planning for what else will emerge? Sees itself immersed in tachyon demonstration as a sign of cerenkov radiation as that blue light?

    So indeed I struggle with how such theorectical position might have told me what is going on, and this issue, is not to be ignored as long as it is remianing consistant with the developement from standard model presumptions.

    Paul first, and then I had been wondering about this issue right back in the beginning as it came to our attention. Steinberg and clarifications on what the microstate balckhole is was important, as it demonstrates the basis of work being done taking the energies and collidial events, to a new level of reductionistic perception. The microstate blackhole is the basis as far as I can tell.

    Now given the state of Quark Gluon Plasma, what happens when you see such things hhappeniing that you have to aassume a new theoretcial position like M theory that such D Brane assumptions talk abut the viscosity nature? What are the poperties that have emerged from the idea of the blackhole, as this new state of matter tells us something about superfluids and such?

    Does Peter understand these new developments? Does his own theoretical position from model assumption he also used, have correlates to current day information and research? It had been my hope, that his position would have created the dialogue necessary. I have enjoyed the mathematical adventures he has shown has developed further my perspective as shown, in the very last link below.

    In order to have the perspective and vision of the abstract world of the mathematics shown, you needed to know some things. They had to be couched in the history of all that we have learnt, and any modification in mathematical language, alters that perspective, if it relates to the very work you are doing on extending the standard model?

    See:

  • Quark Gluon Plasma II

  • Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

  • Strangelets in Cosmic Consideration

  • Cosmic Rays Collsions ad Strangelets Produced

  • Quark Stars

  • Accretion Disks

  • Evidence for Extra Dimensions and ICECUBE

  • All Particle of te Standard Model and Beyond
  • Saturday, February 25, 2006

    Nature in Analog Models

    Plato:
    "For everyone, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another."


    Oh! how complete our world view would be, that I have moved quickly to the very question of all summations given. That while "visually" occupying the mind, we had been taken to the standard model's extension. That we moved beyond, to the "introduction of the graviton," as a force carrier? What world is that Plato?

    Structuralists, like Plato we would be, that we seen not as Feynamn did, but as "platonic developers" as to the very alluring question of, "nature's form?" Lost was our view of the "interactions and processes" yet, seen in another way? That there is a discription ,of all of what these particles could be?

    "Analogue Gravity"by Carlos Barceló and Stefano Liberati and Matt Visser

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


    Part of the theoretics I imagine, is trying to incorporate this into analog models for a deeper comprehension of concepts mathematically embued. Part of the deeper intuitive developement, is what attracted me to the questions about "creativity" and what can be immersed in minds of scientists. What they do with their days.

    Murray Gellman:
    On Plectics
    It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.


    As I read Feynman's words about what the scientist actually does, the human side of the scientist makes it very clear to me, that they are to be treated with the respect, as he conveyed his thoughts. As we might, treat someone who brings together "different ideas" to move conceptual understanding forward, much like those in the mathematical ways. Better to be ignored, eh?:)

    Vision Can Move in the Small world

    The Planck scale is the scale at which quantum gravity is believed to become important. At this scale the smooth structure of spacetime breaks down into some structure (strings, spin-foam, lattice, who knows?). The Planck length is approximately 10-35 m, which is very, very small. To get an idea of how tiny this is we can compare a Planck length LPl with the size of a proton and the size of Rhode Island. The radius of a proton is larger than the Planck length by roughly the same factor as the size of Rhode Island to the proton.


    Did we ever comprehend how we would take our "vision" down to a world so small that we did not recognize that occupying the physical world of large things, there would be comparsions needed. That the "particles" that Murray Gellman speculated would emerge from some model, and become the constituents of a world created in the wonder of, "all these particles may be part of the some alternate form of the same thing?" This arose in the 1950's.

    So before, Susskind and Nambu, Gellman held a interesting perspective, and from it, a question arose. It became the developing insight of string theory. Some, have abandoned the very question and idealization, having graduated to Brane world, does not mean, the very thoughts and principals embued in this focus to the small world, would have been discarded, just, that it will have gone through "revisions and progress" in conceptual design?

    Analog models of quantum field theory in curved space

    In condensed matter, one can construct systems where the propagation of long wavelength phonons (sound waves) is very similar to the propagation of a scalar field in a curved Lorentzian spacetime. Such systems are called 'analog models'. It is even possible to construct analogies to black holes in this manner, where the phonons that travel past a certain point cannot return. For example, consider a fluid where long wavelength phonons in the fluid propagate with speed cs, which is analogous to the speed of light in these models. Now put this fluid in a pipe and change the shape of the pipe such that the speed v of the fluid is faster than cs in one section and slower in an adjacent section. A phonon can travel "back against the current" only up to a certain point, where the the fluid speed equals cs. After that the fluid flow carries it down the pipe. This point in the pipe therefore mimics a black hole event horizon, from which nothing can escape. Other black hole features such as Hawking radiation are also present in these models. Since these models give an example of a system that has a fundamental structure at very short distances (where the fluid description breaks down), yet has a pseudo-Lorentz invariance at long distances.


    Plato as a Composer

    Can a different kind of thinking encase the brain's ability to "envision the abstract of space" to know that it's harmonic values can be seen as the basis of experience?


    Those who would conduct the orchestra, enlisted sounds, which make a whole compositon? One, from which, if physical sight had been remove, and focused internally, had just witnessed the particle world in shower, would lead one to the climatic vision of, "nature of things." From, "it's source?" What began before this whole musical interlude, much as if, the cosmo will wait for our question as to what was?

    So now the very idea of the poem wording I developed here, "no time standing always new", had me thinking about how such a cyclical processes could have ever made its way into our "completeness of views". An extension, beyond the standard model. It was a logical question and place with which responsibility can be still held, regardless, of those who have spelt out the lineage of science in research in this way(string theory model), as some disrupted process in the way of thinking?

    So how would we map this whole process, while we had been taken down to such reductionistic principals. The continuity resorting to structurally discrete, while pondering this structure( what model shall you insert here, Loop, Twistors, Strings)? There are "no rules and no physics" with which we can "initiate thinking" beyond the standard model? So we see the minds very busy with such introductions, professors hired to work the field of choices. Whether to teach or not? To be devoted to a specific area, or just ponder the most difficult question, as to the natures very structure?

    So now we come to a important question, having recognized the power with which the Word "Plato or Aristotle will now be invoked in your mind. That the "archetypes" had been drawn and related. Any future reference, will be in the way Plato might of felt having held his views on music? Possibly, thought about the nature of the world with structure. Developed the forms, as constituents of the way the world exists now.


    See:

  • Laval Nozzle and Blackholes

  • Accretion Disks

  • Quark Stars
  • Thursday, February 23, 2006

    History of the Universe and the Standard Model

    Who would of thought the history of the universe could have ever been contained in this one moment? While it had been translated to 13.7 billions years, what is the value of recognizing this vast history, to what is contained in that one specific moment held in context of the collisions, we have in the colliders? What takes place between high energy particles, and what this process helps us to understand, as we see neutrino effects, talked about in ICECUBE.



    So while we ponder this momenet in time, some things became apparnet as one reads words retro spect, that help to clarify what had been going on in my mind, while never really undertanding that what had been transpiring in my thinking, had been more or less, described from another perspectve as well.

    I talked about "correlation of cognition," becuase it is important that we understnd intuitive development. That we build confidence in ourselves, as we move through the informtaion and see that what we had been learning, had taken us to another level of comprehension, as if, having digested the model in question, whatever that may be.


    Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.



    The Four Fundamental Forces

    Electromagnetism causes like-charged objects to repel each other and oppositely charged objects to attract each other. The electromagnetic force binds negative electrons to the positive nuclei in atoms and underlies the interactions between atoms. Its force carrier particle is a photon.

    The strong force binds quarks together. While the electromagnetic force works to repel the positively charged protons in the nucleus of an atom, the strong force is stronger and overrides these effects. The particle that carries the strong force is called a gluon, so-named because it so tightly "glues" quarks together into larger particles like protons and neutrons. The strong force is also responsible for binding protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.

    Gravity is the phenomenon by which massive bodies, such as planets and stars, are attracted to one another. The warps and curves in the fabric of space and time are a result of how these massive objects influence one another through gravity. Any object with mass exerts a gravitational pull on any other object with mass. You don't fly off Earth's surface because Earth has a gravitational pull on you. Gravity is thought to be carried by the graviton, though so far no one has found evidence for its existence.

    The weak force is responsible for different types of particle decays, including a process called beta decay. This can occur when an atom's nucleus contains too many protons or too many neutrons -- a neutron that turns into a proton undergoes beta minus decay; a proton that changes into a neutron experiences beta plus decay. This weak force is mediated by the electri- cally charged W- and W+ force carrier particles and the neutral Z0 force carrier particle.




    Reductionistic Views

    Part of this discription is important from the understanding, that how we see, and talk about things that we do in let's say Q<-->Q measure and distance, have some relation to what we are talking about and discribing in collision states. So this entry here helps to this degree, to maintain some cohesion and understanding, while differences in model and experimental conceptions are explored.


    Cosmic Rays


    Conservatively the idealization, is the progression from the understanding of Unifying forces, and progression to conceptual understanding found and revealled in the world of natural processes. Who would have ever thought that platonic forms could have been capture in the mind of a Gellman, while a Feynman help to introduce us to the interactions?

    Fig. 1. The four forces (or interactions) of Nature, their force carrying particles and the phenomena or particles affected by them. The three interactions that govern the microcosmos are all much stronger than gravity and have been unified through the Standard Model
    .


    This is what I like to do. Summations while they be ill time to a better comprehension demanded, I found this a wonderfiul idealization in moving intuitively perception to a clearer understanding, as I looked at ICECUBE. All that I am encountering through exploration of principles embued in experimental observations, according to what "new" physics might be revealled.

    While the experimental situation has been set up( who determine what experiments would be challenged?) All the worker bees ready to do their parts. How well had they understood this process, to potentially reveal a better insight into what will come next?

    There had to be evidence of your theoretical positions in nature.

    Would you be so hesitant to just sit and wait, while the opportunity exists for you to unite these experimental procedures? Into a pciture of a complete scenario, as you understood it in nature. How energy of the particle collisons within our environ and the resulting particle dissipation, revealled as the neutrino base experiment given to signs as what?

    So what is this unifying concept, that we could see the strong force, to the weak being explained, while we had paid attention and witness to many things going on with earth, as an observatory, in it's completeness?

    At this moment then the division and valuation of experimental cross sectioning of fundamental forces( experiments respectively), would have been placement of "all aspects of the unifying forces" as it's measure. That we could have correlated across the map, all aspects united in some unique translation, as LIGO, or Pierre Auger, or Collider experiments, along with Ice CUbe, paints a extremely interesting picture for us.

    What "new math" will be borne in the minds with "new concepts and models" to bring analogy into context as natures way?

    See:

  • Mathematical Enlightenment
  • Sunday, February 12, 2006

    Cosmic Variance's Very Own: Strangelets in 10 or 11

    Cosmic Variance's very own.

    Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo found that if so called micro-black holes, which are smaller than the nucleus of an atom, exist, they can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions. If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. Such a collision could happen at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which will become operational next year. Once created, the micro-black hole decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons, which are easy to detect. Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos, Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo solved complex equations to determine if our universe has 10, 11, or more dimensions — perhaps too many dimensions to be explained by critical string theory.


    So what is the experiment that is being produced?

    Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos,

    While I consider the state itself, the thoughts of ICECUBE come to mind. This previous ICECUBE post on this is extremely helpful.

    What is also helpful is to remember what the collision process produces and how we can see this process in relation to cosmic collisions. Not just in the colliders themself. While we might of debated the strange matter below, I enlist the idea of the gravitonc considerations and maybe it is not altogether clear, it is with some satisfaction that such thinking of dimensional attributes are actually given parameters with which to work?

    Strange Matter (12 Feb 2006)

    Some theories suggest that strange matter, unlike neutronium, may be stable outside of the intense pressure that produced it; if this is so, then small substellar pieces of strange stars (sometimes called strangelets) may exist in space in a wide range of sizes all the way down to atomic scales. There is some concern that ordinary matter, upon contacting a strangelet, would be compressed into additional strange matter by its gravity; strangelets would therefore be able to "eat" any ordinary matter they came into contact with, such as planets or stars. This possibility is not considered likely, however.

    Strangelets are thought to have a net positive charge, which is neutralized by the presence of degenerate electrons extending slightly beyond the edge of the strangelet, a kind of electron "atmosphere." If a normal matter atomic nucleus encounters a strangelet, it will approach until it begins penetrating this negatively charged atmosphere. At that point it will start to see the positive electrical potential and be repelled from the strangelet. Sufficiently energetic nuclei, or neutrons (which are unaffected by electrical charges), can reach the strangelet and be absorbed; the up/down/strange quark ratio would then readjust by beta decay.


    See:
    Phases of Matter for Reference

    Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

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

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

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


    See:

  • Blackhole Creations

  • Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

  • Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

  • Microstate Blackhole Production

  • Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

  • Accretion Disks

  • Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

  • IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

  • What Are those Quantum Microstates
  • Saturday, February 11, 2006

    History of the Superfluid: New Physics



    Nice Picture above.



    It is really confusing for me sometimes so I have to revisit the set up, to make sure I have things slotted to the way it is being used to penetrate reductionistic views, that help us understand the new physics that emerges from Gold Ion collisions.

    So what is a color glass condensate? According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, when a nucleus travels at near-light (relativistic) speed, it flattens like a pancake in its direction of motion. Also, the high energy of an accelerated nucleus may cause it to spawn a large number of gluons, the particles that hold together its quarks. These factors--relativistic effects and the proliferation of gluons--may transform a spherelike nucleus into a flattened "wall" made mostly of gluons. This wall, 50-1000 times more dense than ordinary nuclei, is the CGC (see Brookhaven page for a letter-by-letter explanation of the CGC's name). How does the gluon glass relate to the much sought quark-gluon plasma? The QGP might get formed when two CGC's collide


    So you say that the particles are supported by the HE4 Superfluid, then how does that energy leak off into the extra dimensions? Hmmmm. As thread unfolds below? What are these strangelets that are catapulted beyond the collider? Porous induced shell casing?

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


    Bose Nova revisited

    I wanted to bring this to the surface again for inspection, as this comes out of the work another fellow and I had discussed at length as we shared perspective on the nature and dynamics geometrically inclined.


    Accretion Disk


    Sometimes, if one does not realized what is governing the thought process, why and how would such things not make some kind of sense. As we move our perceptions ever deeper into the workings of the reductionistic world and find, that these results are being meet in a theoretical sense, as developing well along experimental one too.

    As a layman these views are important to me ,more then the cyncism that pervades the supposed debate on model assumption. While the cynic provides no service other then being that. I have learn to see where the patience and developemental attitude requires a more conducive field of opportunity to bring out the best in each of those scientist that very quickly, the desired approach, is being gone after.

    So herein lies a little history, and the synoptic event that is holding my thoughts today.

    Do the Bosenova

    To set a BEC swirling Ketterle's team shone a rotating laser beam on it while holding it in place with strong magnets. The experiment is like "stroking a ping-pong ball with a feather until it starts spinning," muses Ketterle. The surprising thing was that suddenly, a regular array of whirlpools appeared in the BEC. "It was a breathtaking experience when we saw those vortices," recalls Ketterle. Researchers had seen such whirlpools before (in liquid helium and in BECs) but never so many at once. This array of superfluid whirlpools was exactly the kind of storm system astronomers predicted would swirl beneath the iron crust of a neutron star.

    Evidence for the swirling depths of neutrons stars is based on the fact that some neutron stars are pulsars - the emit a powerful beam of radiation as they spin - like a cosmic lighthouse. The pulses are very regular but occasionally there is a glitch and a pulse might come slightly too early or too late and it is these glitches that are thought to be due to superfluid vortices hammering into the inside of the neutron star's crust.

    Ketterle adds that attractions between atoms in a BEC could parallel the collapse of a neutron star so emulating the distant and massive in the laboratory too. The explosive collapse of a BEC, dubbed a "Bosenova" (pronounced "bose-a-nova") by Wieman releases only a tiny quantity of energy, just enough to raise the temperature of the BEC by 200 billionths of a degree. Supernovae release many times the energy.


    So while I had drawn attention to the process afew years ago that we had discussed, it was important that the very idea of a geometrical process that encompass all the information we currently have, has been filed to specific areas for consideration.

    While the tidbits placed our perspectives all over the map, and held the idealization of the geometry to Feynman's toy models, a greater implication existed that few of realized as we can read about Dirac and the way in which he sees. While I had not been blessed with such a mathematical mind, it seems my vision of things are quite capable, while speaking about reductionistic proceses intuitive roads that lead to the developmental understanding of the nature of the supefuid. A place in which flatspacetime geometry would allow you to consider properties that ask us to explain what this emergent property might be.

    So, if such supersymmetrical idealization was to exist what was this place to say about what began here, or there, in the expression of our universe? Something had to be created that was new to us in our assessment as "new physics." So what was produced? Where did this avenue and funnel allow such an expression that we would look at the bose nova expressing itself, in a model approach.

    Whirling atoms dance into physics textbooks

    Superconductivity is superfluidity for charged particles instead of atoms. High-temperature superconductivity is not fully understood, but the MIT observations open up opportunities to study the microscopic mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

    "Pairing electrons in the same way as our fermionic atoms would result in room-temperature superconductors," Ketterle explained. "It is a long way to go, but room-temperature superconductors would find many real-world applications, from medical diagnostics to energy transport." Superfluid Fermi gas might also help scientists test ideas about other Fermi systems, like spinning neutron stars and the primordial soup of the early universe.


    Historical Perspective
  • Eric Cornell

  • Carl Wieman

  • Wolfgang Ketterle

  • 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics

  • Neutron star

  • M. Coleman Miller




  • Today and the New Physics



    So now that you see that this process is a interesting one, it is necessary to see how such comparative views on a cosmological scale could have been ever immersed in the microperspective.

    This has been my attempt at bringing the place for persepctve into line so that such "new physics" woud have captured the layman's mind. Found the seed bed for new maths, to have created a visionary world that could have arisen from this point on the brane, that such circles, had a greater meaning then one could have ever realized.

    What was happening outside of our colliders that we could speak to what was happening inside of the colliders? This is amazing story, as we now see that events happening with high energy particles, have made themself known in our immediate envirnment to have said what can exist here now in such weak field manifestations, that we had graduated from the normal gravity wave perception GR lead us from, and sent us too?

    Many Holes?

    So now that a cosmological event has captured our mind, the big bang taken us to the first microseconds of our universe, the supersymmetrical view realized, what say we see the possiblility in those new bubbles that arise from Dirac's Sea?

    Each hole while existing within the frame work of a supefluid state madeit possible for us to realize that such expressions would have happen at such micro levels that we had been thinking about how we send our measures to such levels? The new physics is what had been strange to our normal way of thinking and now?

    It would have been my hope that bringing five different people together in the Cosmic Variance scheme of things, would have created the perfect group, as to bringing persepctive and varied opinion together in perception into the family and said how nice that these different perspectives were really one aspect of the whole picture?