Showing posts with label Quarks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quarks. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The Belle B Factory Experiment

Existing standard hadrons and exotic hadrons. At the B Factory experiment, a series of new exotic mesons containing charm quarks (c) have been discovered. Unlike these exotic mesons, the newly discovered Zb particles contain bottom quarks (b) and have an electric charge. If only one bottom quark and one anti-bottom quark ( b ) are contained, the resulting particle is electrically neutral. Thus, the Zb must also contain at least two more quarks (e.g., one up quark (u) and one anti-down quark ( d )).

The Belle B Factory experiment, which began in 1999 with the aim of elucidating the origin of particle-anti-particle symmetry breaking (CP violation), has contributed to the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2008 awarded to Drs. Kobayashi and Maskawa. Moreover, data obtained from electron--positron collisions with the world's highest luminosity achieved at the KEKB accelerator have resulted in a series of unexpected discoveries of exotic hadrons, opening a new research frontier in particle physics. Data taking at the Belle Experiment has already been completed, but a vast amount of data is still awaiting detailed analysis. Moreover, an upgraded version of the KEKB/Belle Experiment, called SuperKEKB/Belle II is currently being prepared. Belle II aims to collect 50 times more data than the earlier experiment......... See: Belle Discovers New Heavy 'Exotic Hadrons'
Also See:


The Belle experiment is a particle physics experiment conducted by the Belle Collaboration, an international collaboration of more than 400 physicists and engineers investigating CP-violation effects at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation (KEK) in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan

The Belle detector, located at the collision point of the ee+ asymmetric-energy collider (KEKB), is a multilayer particle detector. Its large solid angle coverage, vertex location with precision on the order of tens of micrometres (provided by a silicon vertex detector), good pionkaon separation at the momenta range from 100 MeV/c till few GeV/c (provided by a novel Cherenkov detector), and few-percent precision electromagnetic calorimetry (CsI(Tl) scintillating crystals) allow for many other scientific searches apart from CP-violation. Extensive studies of rare decays, searches for exotic particles and precision measurements of B mesons, D mesons, and tau particles have been carried out and have resulted in almost 300 publications in physics journals.

Highlights of the Belle experiment so far include

  • the first observation of CP-violation outside of the kaon system (2001)
  • observation of: B \to K^* l^+ l^- and b \to s l^+ l^-
  • measurement of ϕ3 using the B \to D K, D \to K_S \pi^+ \pi^- Dalitz plot
  • measurement of the CKM quark mixing matrix elements | Vub | and | Vcb |
  • observation of direct CP-violation in B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^- and B^0 \to K^- \pi^+
  • observation of b \to d transitions
  • evidence for B \to \tau \nu
  • observations of a number of new particles including the X(3872)

The Belle experiment operated at the KEKB accelerator, the world's highest luminosity machine. The instantaneous luminosity exceeded 2.11×1034 cm−2·s−1. The integrated luminosity collected at the ?(4S) resonance mass is ~710 fb−1 (corresponds to 771 million BB meson pairs). Most data is recorded on the ?(4S) resonance, which decays to pairs of B mesons. About 10% of the data is recorded below the ?(4S) resonance in order to study backgrounds. In addition, Belle has carried out special short runs at the ?(5S) resonance to study B
as well as on the ?(3S) resonance to search for evidence of Dark Matter and the Higgs Boson.

The Belle II B-factory, an upgraded facility with two orders of magnitude more luminosity, has been approved in June 2010.[1] The design and construction work is ongoing.

 See also

 External links


  1. ^ KEK press release

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.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

QGP Research Advances

“We can say that the system definitely flows like a liquid,” says Harris.

One of the first lead-ion collisions in the LHC as recorded by the ATLAS experiment on November 8, 2010. Image courtesy CERN.

Scientists from the ALICE experiment at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider have publicly revealed the first measurements from the world’s highest energy heavy-ion collisions. In two papers posted today to the website, the collaboration describes two characteristics of the collisions: the number of particles produced from the most head-on collisions; and, for more glancing blows, the flow of the system of two colliding nuclei.
Both measurements serve to rule out some theories about how the universe behaves at its most fundamental, despite being based on a relatively small number of collisions collected in the first few days of LHC running with lead-ion beams.
In the first measurement, scientists counted the charged particles that were produced from a few thousand of the most central lead-ion collisions—those where the lead nuclei hit each other head-on. The result showed that about 18,000 particles are produced from collisions of lead ions, which is about 2.2 times more particles than produced in similar collisions of gold ions at Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.
See: ALICE experiment announces first results from LHC’s lead-ion collisions

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Collider Detector at Fermilab and Slac

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

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

The CDF Detector. Image from Fermilab

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

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

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

Multi-Jet Hadronic Events

Event 12637_6353_600_z_3jet

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

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

Cosmic Rays

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

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

Friday, November 10, 2006

Lisa Randall on Xtra Dimensions

In physics, Randall-Sundrum models imagine that the real world is a higher-dimensional Universe described by warped geometry. More concretely, our Universe is a five-dimensional anti de Sitter space and the elementary particles except for the graviton are localized on a (3 + 1)-dimensional brane or branes.

The models were proposed in 1999 by Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum while studying technicolor models.

With the online chat yesterday I'll have to look in on Sabine Hossenfelder and Stefan's of Backreaction blog entry in this regard to look at it more in depth.

Photograph by Phil Knott
Click to view for a larger version.
So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

If there are more than three dimensions out there, how does that change our picture of the universe?

The very ideas are of extra dimensions are very progressive, and are not without some history. Some people will label anything as crackpot, without understanding the history of these discussions."

Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of

In the latest, hottest Big Science tome — the delightfully titled "Warped Passages" — Harvard physicist Lisa Randall describes the idea that the universe we see around us is but one tiny part of a vast reality that may include an infinite number of other universes. Randall is an expert on both cosmology and that arcane branch of particle physics known as string theory. By marrying the two fields, she and her colleagues have formulated a picture in which our universe may be seen as a soap-film-like membrane (a "braneworld") sitting inside a much larger space: the bulk. According to general relativity, the universe we live in has four dimensions: three of space and one of time. Randall's work extends this framework and posits the existence of a fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is the bulk, and within its immeasurably expanded space, there is no reason to assume that ours is the only cosmos.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

The Higg's Boson and Memory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the discrete measure and it's shape?

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

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

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

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

What just "is?"

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

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

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

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."


  • Strangelets Do Not Exist?
  • The Fate of our Planet?
  • Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006
  • Monday, September 25, 2006

    Why do physicists want to study particles?

    A few "cosmic rays" pass through our body every second of every day, regardless of where we are.

    They consist of particles created when high energy atomic nuclei (mainly protons) coming from outer space collide with the atoms at the top of the earth's atmosphere. Such particles are not just electrons, protons and neutrons, but also other kinds of particle.

    Near the ground, the cosmic rays include muons, similar to the electrons but more than 200 times heavier. Unlike electrons, which live forever, a muon will live about 2.2 microseconds, and then convert into an electron and two neutrinos (electron-neutrino and muon-neutrino; these are like a very light neutral version of the electron and of the muon).

    The muons themselves emerge mainly from the decays of other short-lived particles. Some of these particles, called pions, are made from up and down quarks. However, others (kaons) contain a third type of quark, called the strange quark.

    Cosmic matter is then made up of more components than the atoms. In addition to the electron, electron-neutrino, up quark and down quark, we have the muon, the muon-neutrino and the strange quark.

    Do Blackholes Radiate

    The possibility that non-radiating "mini" black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe. Attempts to place observational limits on the number of "mini" black holes (independent of the assumption that they radiate) would be most welcome.

    Friday, September 22, 2006

    What is Natural?

    Fig. 2. Image showing how an 8 TeV black hole might look in the ATLAS detector (with the caveat that there are still uncertainties in the theoretical calculations).

    The question I would pose to those who do not have the dynamical nature of the universe in mind, are you happy with what you are seeing? Is it enough that your measure will be in the value of Steven Weinberg's first three minutes?

    Becuase I have taken you down to the microseconds, we can now see of this uiverse, do you think it so unlikely that the very methods for blackhole dyamics would not have include thermodynamic realizations held in context of the issue brought forward by the introduction by Paul of the Conformal Field theory and the issues relate to Penrose?

    Of course I jump ahead, based on the current knowledge base I have been able to put together by reading, sharing ideas and learning. So "you see," and "I see" what?

    Gamma ray detection is just the beginning of the lesson behind deeper perceptions of our universe and it is in this way that you are taken to view the universe on a much more dynamical level.

    But wait, I don't talk lightly of Planck scale and the measure of the square box.

    Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form. Nature is the subject of scientific study. In scale, "nature" includes everything from the universal to the subatomic. This includes all things animal, plant, and mineral; all natural resources and events (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes)

    On to the Validity of the LHC

    I encounter a concept the other day that took me back some. If we intercede and experiment to find the fundamental working associated with "dynamcial thinking" then how could one actually do this, while holding a "cosmological view" to all that we are exposed too in the space, around earth, and beyond?

    So of course, while we are being treated to the vast views given to us by Hubble and all the satellites, how much more could we have been satisfied to say, "look at what we have accomplished?"

    That is enough for the cosmologist is it not?

    In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement defined in terms of universal physical constants in such a manner that some chosen physical constants take on the numerical value of one when expressed in terms of a particular set of natural units. Natural units are intended to elegantly simplify particular algebraic expressions appearing in physical law or to normalize some chosen physical quantities that are properties of universal elementary particles and that may be reasonably believed to be constant. However, what may be believed and forced to be constant in one system of natural units can very well be allowed or even assumed to vary in another natural unit system. Natural units are natural because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are often, without qualification, called "natural units" but are only one system of natural units among other systems. Planck units might be considered unique in that the set of units are not based on properties of any prototype, object, or particle but are based only on properties of free space.

    So as strange as it may seem "this concept" held in mind argues the validity of the LHC as a process that is "natural" as it is used to delve into the energies that allow us to see this "cascade of nature as particle manifestations. In this way, we have to support our views on what?

    So, we develope instruments to help us look to the very beginnings of creation? We talk about blackholes and we ask, "are these real?"

    Microstate Blackholes

    What gave us the ability to entertain such concepts that we again ask ourselves, "are these real?" All we had known is that Blackholes exist in nature? So the point I am making is that if you follow the natural costants, what use the microstate in, or as a valuation of what is real in cosmological association?

    If, as some suspect, the Universe contains invisible, extra dimensions, then cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere will produce tiny black holes. These black holes should be numerous enough for the observatory to detect, say Jonathan Feng and Alfred Shapere of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Fortunately while we were being occupied by the news of LHC and all the workers found busy there constructing, there were others who were very busy too. They were helping us see in ways that we were not accustom as well, in regards too, the cosmic particle collisions. Now what use this information if we had thought this avenue not fruitful and necessary?

    Nevertheless, astroparticle and collider experiments should provide useful input to the theoretical work in this area. Indeed, the signatures are expected to be spectacular, with very high multiplicity events and a large fraction of the beam energy converted into transverse energy, mostly in the form of quarks/gluons (jets) and leptons, with a production rate at the LHC rising as high as 1 Hz. An example of what a typical black-hole event would look like in the ATLAS detector is shown in figure 2.

    If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007.

    Lest the knowledge doesn't serve us then what will be the quest of LHC? What new route to be taken? And it is in this design of measure that we will see something more direct to the basis of what these energy valuations serve?

    CLIC is based on a novel technology in which an intense low-energy electron beam is used to generate an electromagnetic wave that is used to push a lower-intensity beam to much higher energies in a relatively small distance. It seems to be the only realistic chance of colliding electrons and positrons at multi-TeV energies so, if it works, it will allay (at least for a while) some of David Gross's concerns about the prospects for future big physics projects-John Ellis

    Saturday, August 26, 2006

    Beyond Spacetime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Attributes of the Superfluids

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

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

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

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

    Let's move on here, as I have.

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

    So here we are.

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

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

    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?


  • Sonofusion - star in a jar
  • Sunday, May 14, 2006

    Building our Illusions?

    Back to Fractal Neurodyamics and Quantum Chaos Part 1

    10 Conclusion
    The importance of developing a model of brain function which gives a consistent description of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound. The model described links the structural instability of brain dynamics, quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical brain may thus be more than just an interface between sensory input and decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between complementary aspects of the physical universe, the time-directed nature of real-particle symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric aspect of the sub-quantum domain (King 1989). If so, the role of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be central to cosmology.

    While I am no expert by any means and a student of, with my own learning curve, I have struggle to gain understanding of the concepts of that string theory model. That is what my site is about.

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

    Yes that is a interesting article, and it could be said the Gabriele is the Father of string theory.

    There were many conceptual problems for me when I kept reading about what the nature of reality could be described as? Cosmological considerations were held to the very beginning, and and anything beyond that was of course not spoken of? What is nothing?

    Birth of the Universe

    It has to do with the "timing" of the energy scale. At 0 second the effect of the universe is what(?) and what set this motivation into existance?

    Quantum Gravity Era:

    A temperature value of10320C and a time of10-43Second.

    Proton-At 10 Microseconds, Quarks are bound into protons and neutrons.

    Well now, it is really important to know where the timeline is, that speaks to "string theories position within the expression of that universe. So, that is important.

    If one had thought the universe entropically very simple, this would have had to held some considertaions to what supersymmetrical realization would mean in regards to that beginning?

    Also, that in that beginning certain ideological factors become known when held to the understanding of the colliders and what is taking place there.

    The blackhole danger creation of in RHIC, as well as, how this extension of thought(strangelets) has been moved to the cosmological particle collisons take place above us. Shower earth with it's particle reductionistic familiars, is an important step in how we speak of the nature of the reality that has been conceptual built as a construct.

    Validity as to it's measures. While in string there has been no confirmation, it is conceptually pitted minds to develope experimental methods in regards to the ideas of the string theory model. As it should.

    Do you know who or what you are? Think about it. There are many illusions in life. The arguably tragic thing is that so many people of the past have lived their entire lives in illusion. They believed in their mental constructs, and took them to be the truth of things. They were confined within their human consciousness, and never looked beyond. They never saw the true potential of consciousness, nor realized the constructive nature of reality. They never realized that their 'truths' were simply mental constructs, including their own sense of self-identity.

    Mental Constructs then? Okay?:)

    Yet there is enough reason to believe, that if the consensus is, that many will share the perceptable value of the construct, then it becomes a major illusion does it not?

    So what do you say of all these people of science who are looking for "what Lies Beneath." Looking to build a understanding in regards to the value of those mental construct?

    Is it worthless to have the mind occupy such a intellectual pursuite, and then say, that if you did not find the correlation and cognitive value to such an insight in regards to the begonning of the universe, then what value is this science if it did not bring us to a closer understanding of "What Lies Beneath?"

    You remember Robert Laughlin?

    So, you may call it "eastern influence" with a philosophical history? Baking bread, or perhaps playing with bubbles, using the explanations as a fundamental reality underneath that reality?

    Articulating Oneself?

    If the title of thread and objective of the article written are to follow the thread of responsibility, then such journies into the fantastic, have to be thought about in regards to the smell of Jasmine? :) That's part of another story, don't worry about it.

    While in the room, devoid of the the branches and trees of the flowering history divine, had one thought about the wind that may drift from a open window, or the residue from having engaged a whole bush??

    What constraints shall you be held too, that the thought about what wording held, might enter the hearts of any other person, that you, consider very carefully the sanesness of that scientist who speaks, for the right things in life, and speaks about the fantastic in such ways?

    It's okay, your human.

    I would say these small fine things, made in such a visual way point to the beauty of life is fantastical and in a warming way much for the soul, regardless.

    You announced yourself, and the intentions of such validation warms your soul when others to speak. That's the way of it, and if it does not come, while with it, others whom may be cruel in their remarks, how shall you deal with it?

    KNow that it is okay to feel the way you do and know too that if you wonder then about the way of doing things, shall it continue to be this way, while such integrity of the soul shows it's hand regardless of what others may have thought. Constrain it to what another thought, feel comfort, that you may be able to speak freely regardless.

    Wednesday, May 10, 2006

    How Particles Came to be?

    The First Few Microseconds, by Michael Riordan and Willaim A. Zajc
    For the past five years, hundreds of scientists have been using a powerful new atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island to mimic conditions that existed at the birth of the universe. Called the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC, pronounced "rick"), it clashes two opposing beams of gold nuclei traveling at nearly the speed of light. The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.
    During those early moments, matter was an ultrahot, superdense brew of particles called quarks and gluons rushing hither and thither and crashing willy-nilly into one another. A sprinkling of electrons, photons and other light elementary particles seasoned the soup. This mixture had a temperature in the trillions of degrees, more than 100,000 times hotter than the sun's core.

    What was the initial energy that distributed the particle natures to have "microstate blackholes" created, while the conditions for other experiments are considered?

    There are some things we need to know and I will show this shortly. I know certain people believe I am "ad hocing," but how would you get to the source of the thoughts, if one did not consider the conditions in which thought forms were created? So while we lok at the high energy collision of cosmic particles what are some of the things to watch for?

    Forbush Decrease

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

    How would you not know, while the timeline has been explained, and a place for such expression would reveal such conditions to have them displayed, that we could think of them from such a beginning?

    Where is that? Maybe you had to know about RHIC to understand the full notion of such a superfluids created, to know that such a condition became counter-intutive because of the new physics that it could present?

    What is dissapated and how did it get there as other particle conditions are realized? Remember, the initial energy of such a expression was in a more simplified state, before it became as complex as it did in entropic realizations.

    New state of matter more remarkable than predicted -- raising many new questions

    The four detector groups conducting research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) -- a giant atom “smasher” located at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory -- say they’ve created a new state of hot, dense matter out of the quarks and gluons that are the basic particles of atomic nuclei, but it is a state quite different and even more remarkable than had been predicted. In peer-reviewed papers summarizing the first three years of RHIC findings, the scientists say that instead of behaving like a gas of free quarks and gluons, as was expected, the matter created in RHIC’s heavy ion collisions appears to be more like a liquid.

    “Once again, the physics research sponsored by the Department of Energy is producing historic results,” said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, a trained chemical engineer. “The DOE is the principal federal funder of basic research in the physical sciences, including nuclear and high-energy physics. With today’s announcement we see that investment paying off.”

    As a product of mind could it be reborn, or burn up, and we are only discussing the philosophical considerations. Phenix, or was that Phoenix, like the bird? Rising from the flames and a renewal, as part of the creation of new conditions?

    Scientists May Soon Have Evidence for Exotic Predictions of String Theoryissued by Northeaster University

    "String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

    Tuesday, March 21, 2006

    Why Higher Energies?

    I guess I don't have to tell anyone how confusing all this stuff is and the need for a consistent picture to arise out of it.

    New physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and parallel universes by Rainer Plaga

    top-quark masses - for which the standard model predicts such a decay - cannot be interpreted as evidence for new physics at low energy scales.

    The history of Risk Assessment, was a exercise into understanding the developing role as to what new physics should be? Strangelets and strange quarks arose from this?

    The search for the very small requires very high energies. The discoveries necessary for the electroweak unification were near the upper end of available energies in the current generation of particle accelerators. Establishing Grand Unification is beyond the practical limits of earthbound laboratories. This forces particle physicists to look outward to astrophysical phenomena which may have enough energy to shed some light on further attempts at unifying the four fundamental forces.

    This map defines the whole standard model and the phase transitions. We are talking about a "certain time" in the planck epoch. So what is happening "in" the Planck epoch?

    If such energies had recognized the current state of the superfluid created, then anomalies in "this scenario" would have allowed such "geometrical presence to be channelled" as part of the cyclical features contained in the expression of the universe?

    So you take this universe and apply the backhole on a cosmlogical scale eqaul to it's inflation, as a distance in the blackhole's radius? Such a crunch would have recognized the boundary conditions as a the furthest point this universe could have grown, from the original blackhole that created this universe?

    So what evidence is left? That the universe and it's "dark matter" as the false vacuum is creating the scenarios for the universe to have found it's temeperature today, started from some "other condition" seen in the planck epoch? Okay how did you get there?

    The bubble conditions would then have to existed in the superfluids? How would have geoemtrically arrived at such a "topology expressed" in this one universe?

    Professor Satyendra Nath Bose, the founder of Bose-Einstein statistics and the discoverer of the “Boson,” is well known as a giant in the world of physics and science as the man who, along with Albert Einstein, revolutionized the world of theoretical physics and showed the world a new way to imagine how the world works.

    The topological genus figure of the sphere, to a torus and it's rotation seen in characteristic, housed the equallibrium state arrived at, as to the channelling of that extra energy and the resulting "new physics" in the strange quarks created?

    So what is "that cylinder" created as the jet is expressed, in the gravitational collapse

    See: John Bahcall and the Neutrinos

    Thus, this cycle is completed in the bulk perspective? Would have created the situation again in strong concentrations? Why cosmologically the conditons are "many" and such evidence pointing to ICECUBE, as to the conditons beyond the standard model, leads to questions about "cerenkov radiation?"

    Is there no backreaction created, if we were to lets say look at the Laval nozzles, and understand that what is expressed in the standard model energy once ejected in the jet, would have had counter proposals manifest in the geomerical presence held to a whole universe. The Anti-matter? Non Qui

    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?


  • Mathematical Enlightenment