Showing posts with label Susskind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Susskind. Show all posts

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Gravitational Collapse and the Horizon

It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black holes is that the holes are surrounded by firewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy any infalling observer. Such firewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem to be ruled out on other grounds. A different resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is lost. This proposal is supported by ADS-CFT and is the only resolution of the paradox compatible with CPT. The collapse to form a black hole will in general be chaotic and the dual CFT on the boundary of ADS will be turbulent. Thus, like weather forecasting on Earth, information will effectively be lost, although there would be no loss of unitarity. See: Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes


r 0 = G M c 2
The critical radius r 0 where the energy of m changes sign is called the horizon radius. The region inside this critical radius is called a black hole. See: Can we make objects of zero mass?
Implications for the black hole problem:Recall that vacuum fluctuations near the horizon had lead to the creation of particle pairs See: The Black Hole Information Paradox

Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, James Sully
We argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon. Alternatives would seem to require novel dynamics that nevertheless cause notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the horizon. Black Hole: Complementarity vs Firewall

See Also:

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Entanglement and the Geometry of Spacetime

Theorists have forged a connection between wormholes in spacetime (above) and a quantum phenomenon called entanglement.

But how big an insight is this? It depends on whom you ask. Susskind and Maldacena note that in both papers, the original quantum particles reside in a space without gravity. In a simplified, gravity-free 3D model of our world, there can’t be any black holes or wormholes, Susskind adds, so the connection to a wormhole in a higher dimensional space is mere mathematical analogy. The wormhole and entanglement equivalence “only makes sense in a theory with gravity,” Susskind says. However, Karch and colleagues say that their calculations are an important first step toward verifying Maldacena and Susskind’s theory. Their toy model without gravity, Karch says, “gives a concrete realization of the idea that wormhole geometry and entanglement can be different manifestations of the same physical reality."A Link Between Wormholes and Quantum Entanglement

Note here about Issuu software in link above. I made a comment about this type of software with regard to document writing and appearance. For an open publishing format I am less then pleased that if you have a shared format and embedding program that allows you to embed articles and then does not do this, to me,  if you go a bit further into the program of Issuu then it's no more then a publishing ploy to get you to pay money for use of this type of publishing format. So while I started to use this program for document sharing I had to only provide the link to an interesting article to the ongoing saga of Maldacena and Susskind. I had to also substitute the main article by Maldacena,  with news story

See Also:

Analogies Make You Think

Falling into a Blackhole- On Sept. 25, four theoretical physicists — Raphael Bousso (U.C. Berkeley), Juan Maldacena (Institute for Advanced Study), Joseph Polchinski (U.C. Santa Barbara) and Leonard Susskind (Stanford University) — answered your questions about the latest theories about what happens when matter falls into a black hole and how these ideas are prompting researchers to reconsider our understanding of gravity.

See Also:

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Information Loss

You see, people are uncomfortable with this information loss. It’s the minority view.Pg 64, The Cyclic Universe: A Conversation with Roger Penrose

I am certainly uncomfortable with it, as I have always seen it from the idea  as to what is current in the field of discussion around blackholes and such. So there are things going on as I am reading the pdf discussion with Roger Penrose.  I am also listening to Susskind's lecture while correlating the perspective that is being talked about by Roger Penrose.

I am adding this link just for some perspective about information and the presence of an anomaly that I perceive for such rules about past and future, and the topic of will. This as it relates too, the whole gamut of the science and investigation of what truly exists in terms of information.  Most surely,  I have some issues to deal with:)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The black-hole information paradox, complementarity, and firewalls by Leonard Susskind

The black-hole information paradox, complementarity, and firewalls by Leonard Susskind,

Stanford University, at the University of California, Santa Cruz Institute for the Philosophy of Cosmology July 5, 2013

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Cool horizons for entangled black holes

Schwarzschild wormholes

General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. These solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states.
In the case of entangled black holes one can formulate versions of the AMPS(S) paradoxes and resolve them. This suggests possible resolutions of the firewall paradoxes for more general situations.
Cool horizons for entangled black holes Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind

One of the most enjoyable and inspiring physics papers I have read in recent years is this one by Mark Van Raamsdonk. Building on earlier observations by Maldacena and by Ryu and Takayanagi. Van Raamsdonk proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. Since my first encounter with this provocative paper, I have often mused that it might be a Good Thing for someone to take Van Raamsdonk’s idea really seriously. Entanglement=Wormholes preskill

See Also:

Monday, May 30, 2011

TED Talk-Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman

I decided when I was asked to do this that what I really wanted to talk about was my friend Richard Feynman. I was one of the fortunate few that really did get to know him and enjoyed his presence. And I'm going to tell you the Richard Feynman that I knew. I'm sure there are other people here who could tell you about the Richard Feynman they knew, and it would probably be a different Richard Feynman.
Richard Feynman was a very complex man. He was a man of many, many parts. He was, of course, foremost a very, very, very great scientist. He was an actor. You saw him act. I also had the good fortune to be in those lectures, up in the balcony. They were fantastic. He was a philosopher; he was a drum player; he was a teacher par excellence. Richard Feynman was also a showman, an enormous showman. He was brash, irreverent -- he was full of macho, a kind of macho one-upsmanship. He loved intellectual battle. He had a gargantuan ego. But the man had somehow a lot of room at the bottom. And what I mean by that is a lot of room, in my case -- I can't speak for anybody else -- but in my case, a lot of room for another big ego. Well, not as big as his, but fairly big. I always felt good with Dick Feynman.
See Also: Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman


At 9:16 AM, June 01, 2011 Plato said

Listening to this talk with regard to Susskind's opinion about his friend Dick, he too would have thought about, "irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." Albert Einstein

Pure thought(what does this linguistic representation actually mean) would have to lead you there and be most understandable as to leaving no doubt as to what has been derived.

I have often wondered where Feynman actually deduced his diagrams from and for me I think seeing how Dirac worked, this was suffice to me to actually see how "i" in for matrices was derived.

This again is my opinion. I am searching for answers.

For me it was about where one set them self in terms of their observation of the place "this simplicity" might have been realized.

Coxeter might have said circle when looking at a round table from above, while standing to the side, he would say ellipse

At 10:10 AM, June 03, 2011 Plato said...
Nothing worse then having to quote oneself in order to press the point. Carry on with life indeed as if nothing missed.:)
Pure thought(what does this linguistic representation actually mean) would have to lead you there and be most understandable as to leaving no doubt as to what has been derived.

Algorithmically, the HTML language is representative of the order in which we might represent an is done mathematically...that it is conceptually enriched(
put a cloud around it) that by such representation it would include historical understandings. These encapsulated by that rhetorical past is "inclusive."

You just take that for granted/assumption as long as the interpretation actually speaks to the historical development and proceeds forward toward an phenomenological order.

Most had to go through the historical development in order to understand where we are today. For the layman in my "seeing choice of method of production" toward falsifying, the choice of structure of phenomenological order is displayed as to demonstrate the thinking's involved scientifically that demonstrates the logic of approach toward a culmination of models of apprehension.

This display's the approach for myself. Might it be an example then of the whole development toward phenomenological order?


Tuesday, April 12, 2011


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

I was pretty sure at that time that I was the only one in the world who knew this.

Thoughts cross my mind as it did with Susskind's journey into the understanding of how something like a rubber band could have helped him made sense of anything. Just as with Einstein, and how it finally came to him in the understanding of the geometry Grossmann had presented to him?

It was Grossmann who emphasized the importance of a non-Euclidean geometry called elliptic geometry to Einstein, which was a necessary step in the development of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Abraham Pais's book on Einstein suggests that Grossman mentored Einstein in tensor theory as well.

That intuitive leap is an important one in my view when it has been understood that all the data had been gone through, and ultimately, as if resting in some state of equilibrium( it should be understood that QGP and Lagrangian numbers provide such places in my mind), it was fortunate for an access to potential was realized by working to arrive at such a point.

If you picture probabilistic valuation as a link between such a funnel pointing toward the tip of Pascal's triangle, then what fills that funnel(potential) and what comes out of Pascal's triangle? What s the nature of that numbered system. Choose one?

If you can funnel such potential through a point it is more then the constraint with which others may see this proverbial struggle as to identify it as a koan, but more to realize that such potential is the very essence of accessing such a point and allowing the solution toward materialism, which was logically conducive to combing all that data.

So the idea here is that such a heat death could have happened within any mind that the very essence of such a QGP was to realize that it provide for such "a mean" in which transference of information could take place? So how can any mind ever go there?:)

I mean for sure, not only was I concerned about finding this place inside each of our selves and the truth seeking that goes on, but also toward understanding that this was a cosmological process about which sustenance of the universe could have ever been measured in it's "status quo?"

The shaky game: Einstein, realism, and the quantum theory By Arthur Fine

4 Arthur Fine (1986) characterizes such a move, this not the only instance in Einstein's thinking, as the "entheorizing" of a methodological principle in the form of a physical postulate. Fine, however, argues that determinism is, for Einstein, the entheorized version of realism.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Notes to Einstein's Philosophy of Science-Citation Information Don A. Howard

It is most certainly important for myself to maintain some thread of consistency in regard to how we look at reality and how one theorizes about it. So sure... what was Einstein's Realism all about?

So you have to follow that line of thinking?

It still is about truth. About looking to understand it, and being able to know when you have come across it. Does it sound right to you, and does it ring at the very basis of your being when you recognize it?


Einstein and the Development of Twentieth-Century

Philosophy of Science
Don Howard
University of Notre Dame

And in a 28 November 1944 letter to Robert Thornton he echoed those words of nearly thirty years earlier:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering.
This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to
Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Sunday, January 25, 2009


A generalization of a voxel is the doxel, or dynamic voxel. This is used in the case of a 4D dataset, for example, an image sequence that represents 3D space together with another dimension such as time. In this way, an image could contain 100×100×100×100 doxels, which could be seen as a series of 100 frames of a 100×100×100 volume image. Although storage and manipulation of such data uses a lot of computer memory, this allows the study of spacetime systems.

There is a discussion over at Backreaction called, Conservative solutions to the black hole information problem It deals with a paper her and Lee Smolin wrote together.

Conservative solutions to the black hole information problem
By Sabine Hossenfelder and Lee Smolin
arXiv: 0901.3156,
Submitted on 20 Jan 2009) Abstract: We review the different options for resolution of the black hole loss of information problem. We classify them first into radical options, which require a quantum theory of gravity which has large deviations from semi-classical physics on macroscopic scales, such as non-locality or endowing horizons with special properties not seen in the semi-classical approximation, and conservative options, which do not need such help. Among the conservative options, we argue that restoring unitary evolution relies on elimination of singularities. We argue that this should hold also in the AdS/CFT correspondence.

It is important that one is set up in terms of progressing to the determination and explanation of the voxel in the context that Holography. Susskind uses it in the way one can interpret "the bit" of information.

A picture, a photograph, or a painting is not the real world that it depicts. It's flat, not full with three dimensional depth like the real thing. Look at it from the side-almost edge on. It doesn't look anything like the real scene view from a angle. In short it's two dimensional while the world is three dimensional. The artist, using perceptual sleight of hand, has conned you into producing a three dimensional image in your brain, but in fact the information just isn't there to form a three dimensional model of the scene. There is no way to tell if that figure is a distant giant or a close midget There is no way to tell if the figure is made of plaster or if it's filled with blood or guts. The brain is providing information that is not really present in the painted strokes on the canvas or the darken grains of silver on the photographic surface. The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind, page 337 and 338

Friday, January 02, 2009

Gedanken Experiments

While some might consider the multi-dimensional nature of the emotive states laughter does indeed go a long way. It is not without consideration here that such a thinking moves beyond the normal everyday. We are all embroiled in it, one way or another. That is the "very superficial to me," that such an idea sees beyond the limitations of the everyday, and in this consideration, such emotive idealizations can be, very temporal and fluid.

A workers notion then, to the highs and lows, no matter your position in society, so do not think you can escape it's grasp it has on you, or you, moving in the world with experience.

COSMIC SEARCH: How did you come up with the name "black hole"?

John Archibald Wheeler:It was an act of desperation, to force people to believe in it. It was in 1968, at the time of the discussion of whether pulsars were related to neutron stars or to these completely collapsed objects. I wanted a way of emphasizing that these objects were real. Thus, the name "black hole".

The Russians used the term frozen star—their point of attention was how it looked from the outside, where the material moves much more slowly until it comes to a horizon.* (*Or critical distance. From inside this distance there is no escape.) But, from the point of view of someone who's on the material itself, falling in, there's nothing special about the horizon. He keeps on going in. There's nothing frozen about what happens to him. So, I felt that that aspect of it needed more emphasis.

Now being the layman that I am following the history of the subject contained in this proposal by the two individuals of the article below. It has not past my attention that history has unfolded and that such experiments have been presented later to show the continuing questions that exist or bet that had been established, that have now been paid.

Gedanken Experiments Involving Black Holes


Analysis of several gedanken experiments indicates that black hole complementarity cannot be ruled out on the basis of known physical principles. Experiments designed by outside observers to disprove the existence of a quantum-mechanical stretched horizon require knowledge of Planck-scale effects for their analysis. Observers who fall through the event horizon after sampling the Hawking radiation cannot discover duplicate information inside the black hole before hitting the singularity. Experiments by outside observers to detect baryon number violation will yield significant effects well outside the stretched horizon.

So to be sure one gets the sense that I have moved further then just to illustrate or present the idea of the Gedanken on another new blog for consideration, the opening thought of this post, I would like to show what I had gathered "on information," and then move on from there.

See:The elephant and the event horizon 26 October 2006 by Amanda Gefter at New Scientist.

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

It should not pass one's attention also that such an expression of what is happening inside the blackhole has it's observers working from the view of the horizon, and that such applications like Conformal Field theory, work to help us describe such a place.

Campbell's Soup Can by Andy Warhol Exhibited in New York (USA), Leo Castelli Gallery

Spacetime in String Theory-Dr. Gary Horowitz, UCSB-Apr 20, 2005

This year marks the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's "miraculous year", 1905, when he formulated special relativity, and explained the origin of the black body spectrum and Brownian motion. In honor of this occasion, I will describe the modern view of spacetime. After reviewing the properties of spacetime in general relativity, I will provide an overview of the nature of spacetime emerging from string theory. This is radically different from relativity. At a perturbative level, the spacetime metric appears as ``coupling constants" in a two-dimensional quantum field theory. Nonperturbatively (with certain boundary conditions), spacetime is not fundamental but must be reconstructed from a holographic, dual theory. I will conclude with some recent ideas about the big bang arising from string theory.


See also:

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

The Cosmic Landscape

I noticed a few blogs mentioning the landscape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where Peter Woit made his mistake as well.

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

See:The First Three Microseconds

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Finiteness in String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.
Please take note of the underlined.

Well after some thought here in terms of the landscape, it was important from what I understood, that finiteness be explained in the String Theory landscape. That there were markers with which to measure this progress?

A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus. See Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

There is a conversation going on at Cosmic Variance that is continuing with the ongoing debate String Theory is Losing the Public Debate. Well from the technical aspects that is foolish.

As a lay person following the debate on the issue of Finiteness in String Theory landscape was the point technically reached that I was referring too.

David has been careful to lead us through this and as a layman I am watching the way he is describing, so I am learning, as I learnt in other debates.

I hope Jacques that you would encourage David instead of express the futility of such an debate, I have learnt as so many others that you have to "talk past a certain point" if you can no longer get the subject moving beyond the ole rhetoric.

So while learning the difference between the "Fitness landscape" and the "String theory landscape, I learnt the difference is the "finiteness issue in the String theory Landscape?" This then been carried to the issue of Mandelstam and the triple torus?

So this in itself was what allowed us to say that the string theory landscape was indeed working toward the issue of Finiteness with which many have found to be a problem.

See here

Sometimes I wonder why I care so much about working this process and I can only conclude that having my own motivations, and seeing where we had been lead to a point, I had see for myself where the limits of the discussion or debate was being left off.

I learnt to move this forward in face of the points reached. In terms of the same ole rhetoric supplied by Peter Woit. I found that if I wanted to learn anything further in regards to string theory I had to move beyond his arguments confronted, and I have even stopped listening to him. Why would you continue to do research, when a forgone conclusion had been adopted? It's easy, just adopt his point of view and why comment any further unless you had some ulterior motive? Some important information that you could discredit the string theory model itself?

Then it would all be done an dover with and we would have no need further for their services.

Mandelstam held within context of the String landscape

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. See Blackhole Horizon, "as a Hill?"

So for me having markers in place seems critical so I can progress from where future points being talked. I continue to learn from Lee Smolin and why it was important to differentiate between the String theory Landscape and the Fitness Landscape that he is extolling.

Now what does this mean and I needed the article from George Musser's editorial position with the Scientific America magazine to further what I had found. Who said a good magazine, holding a independent position, one way or the other, could not report "bias free" without interjecting it's thought to further embed in consciousness, that a perceived condition exists? That string theory is dead? No, that string theory is loosing ground in a debate? Hardly :)

Considering it's source, I would think about shifting the need for consultation to incentives to post docs, and then maybe Lee Smolin could come in and support that position and then it seems, the debate is going in their direction? Talking about getting away form the essence of the debate on string theory loosing ground. This is a smoke screen being put up when the issue technically were getting close, now required some kind of diversion tactic, of course bas don the same issue with which they perceive string theory is being supported by special interest, and then moving the perception to who should be hired and preferential treatment?

Monday, April 02, 2007

Blackhole Horizon, "as a Hill?"

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.
See Bubble Nucleation

You know I have these thoughts about the string landscape. No where do I find a conversation ongoing that speaks to this.

I am directing our views back to the origins of the universe so that while the geometrics of Smolin's is speaking to what manifests in our universe, the propagation there holds a vast difference to what is being implied in the geometrical topology to other possible expressions asking for clarification "in tunnneling" with the string theory landscape

With regards to the matrimonial issues of the science and quantum gravity, any perspectives with differing views would help elucidate the problems. So one may help indicate "the network" to which each is thinking and thus reveal the attributes encoded in that marriage. This is a well balanced approach to facing the future in regards to science in my view? :)

Hurricane tree © by Jocke Berglund See " A tree in the forest"

Without continuing debate one may come to a dead end, whilst the "opening to diversity" had already been implied in quantum gravity research. Which part of the elephant are you grabbing on too?

I know most have moved on.

String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

See here

AS a layman I needed to understand the differences of String theory Landscape and Fitness landscape? Are others having the same problem?

Fitness landscape

In evolutionary biology, fitness landscapes or adaptive landscapes are used to visualize the relationship between genotypes (or phenotypes) and reproductive success. It is assumed that every genotype has a well defined replication rate (often referred to as fitness). This fitness is the “height” of the landscape.

See here

Always still a puzzle to me. :) Thanks for your patience.

[Published in: Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks, Bearman, Moody and Stovel, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1 (July 2004) 44-91.] See "Sexual Network."

It was important that I distinguish between positions currently adopt by the String community and what is proposed in argument by Lee Smolin's perception? You had to know that regardless of the views extolled by each of them, they must each have some "geometrical basis" that allows us to understand what the "bubble nucleation" is talking about. The false vacuum and it's movement to the true.

You had to identify the mechanism used here to extol the points being made.

Some may have designs of networks that speak to the propagation of what this Fitness landscape is about, and people would not be all the wiser if they had understood the geometrical inclination described in the quote above placed at Clifford's ongoing conflict of representation about string theory to have it further announced at Cosmic Variance as String Theory loosing some kind of battle?

Using Boltzman's brain as a recall of what is happening in the blackhole is part of the discussion I had been trying to move forward without any help from those that should be standing front and centre, regarding their respective fields. Why I have hung around Clifford's continued efforts to answer this supposed Conflict? In face of proponents who would like to bury string theory for what ever reason.

I have to include this post so that you understand the relationship of

If one cannot see "the mechanism being used" then of course it won't make sense.

String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Some maybe happy with the propagation of the species :) but one would have to draw their attention to the geometrical basis of these two differing views on the landscape brought forward?

I am invoking "Boltzmann's brain" here. :) While it may ensue from "first principles" I am still referring to quantum gravity in both regards.

If this is not done, then the debate will continue, "in the land of babble" and "Pink Elephants." Us lay people are not happy about this.
See here for link.

So without identifying the "physics involved" and the "geometrical basis" what use is there to continue the debate while it had been thought that the layman were disrupting the process while the supposed educational level was being somehow more responsible?

It required that we indentify the markers from which to progress and in doing this, one then gets a fothold on the ensuing debate about string theory landscape versus Smolin's Fitness landscape? Hope I got this right?

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Whence began this journey and revolution?


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

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

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

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

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

Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

Unravelling String Theory

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

See more here

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

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

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

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

Thursday, March 08, 2007

The Mind Field

Lee Smolin:
Height is proportional to the number of things the theory gets right. Since we don’t have a convincing case for the right theory yet, that is a high peak somewhere off in the distance. The existing approaches are hills of various heights that may or may not be connected, across some ridges and high valleys to the real peak. We assume the landscape is covered by fog so we can’t see where the real peak is, we can only feel around and detect slopes and local maxima.Lee Smolin
See here for more information.

Without giving some coordinates to the thinking in Colour of Gravity I thought it important that such talk be given a new perspective that had not been considered in the context with how hierarchically how I gave meaning to such colours.

But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

See here for more info on Grace.

First I must say that having the sceptic aligned within oneself is a good thing. To maintain a questioning state to what is ever introduced. For me as I read the exchanges between "Susskind and Smolin" it was not without understanding that I might want to instigate "two other minds in the string debate" to engage them to bring forth "good information" about the model in science, for and against.

Who would ever of thought to give correlate the differences we see on earth as topographical features to have thought "Colour of Gravity" has now been implemented along with sound?

Do not forget "Titan's descent" and what "measure" do we have? We might want to see the surface in a way that you had not seen it before? What I have written so far in this post should open up a new concept in terms of what these measures do for us.

This recording was produced by converting into audible sounds some of the radar echoes received by Huygens during the last few kilometres of its descent onto Titan. As the probe approaches the ground, both the pitch and intensity increase. Scientists will use intensity of the echoes to speculate about the nature of the surface.

So have I lost you in regards to "subjectivity." Was the science reduced to innuendos of all kinds while showing such disrespect? It is less then the desired in exchange. So I have tried to hold this high in my values.

But alas what happens sometimes though, is that we can start speaking past each other, while most distinctly I would prefer the conclusion drawn, where both would agree on the differences. Admit, they would be working to not only support their positions and the reasons why, but instigate others to continue to question and deal respectively with the continued debate. What is gravity?

The immediacy of reactive perceptions would ask that any gravity be held in context of the reaction measured in calorimetric design.

Moving to a "fifth dimensional" understanding was a necessary part of our evolution?

If you join "electromagnetism and and gravity" what will become of your views of the world around you? I am the product of such thoughts. While scientists had been engaged qualitatively, I had become what their equations would allow them too in model design.

So I had to carefully take you to this point to have enlisted the idea of the Mind Field. It's relation to what is hidden in the subtle ideas related to Colour of gravity. That we could have this "multiversity idea held to any scientists mind", while thinking of only the technologies? It had to also have it's subjective valuation too.

How could you think as a scientist and not include this aspect of the thinking mind. That it had some "ascension" to it in terms of "pyramidal qualities." Colours that I might assign? Or, that the "bubble as a sphere" would reflect the scientists mind, as if it was a relation to "earth time variable measures" in the thoughts sequences of experience? You will reflect this, not only on a "verbal level" but one you had not seen before.

Out in Right/Left Field

If one didn't have their own "heart song" what said they couldn't "tap their way?"
Both left and right sides are necessary for complete perception of rhythm. For example, both hemispheres need to be working to tell the difference between three-quarter and four-quarter time.

The front part of your brain (frontal cortex), where working memories are stored, also plays a role in rhythm and melody perception.

So it is no surpise that I would highlight the following debate between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra would it.:)

Hope Springs Eternal Science, the Afterlife & the Meaning of Life-by Michael Shermer
The ancient Hebrew word for soul is nephesh, or “life” or “vital breath”; the Greek word for soul is psyche, or “mind”; and the Roman Latin word for soul is anima, or “spirit” or “breath.” The soul is the essence that breathes life into flesh, animates us, gives us our vital spirit. Given the lack of knowledge about the natural world at the time these concepts were first formed, it is not surprising these ancient peoples reached for such ephemeral metaphors as mind, breath, and spirit. One moment a little dog is barking, prancing, and wagging its tail, and in the next moment it is a lump of inert flesh. What happened in that moment?

In 1907 a Massachusetts physician named Duncan MacDougall tried to find out by weighing six dying patients before and after their death. He reported in the medical journal American Medicine that there was a 21-gram difference. Even though his measurements were crude and varying, and no one has been able to replicate his findings, it has nonetheless grown to urban legendary status as the weight of the soul. The implication is that the soul is a thing that can be weighed. Is it?

Taking the Afterlife Seriously by Deepak Chopra
If consciousness is an aspect of the field, then our brains should operate along the lines of a field. This seems to be true. For one thing, it’s impossible to explain how the brain coordinates millions of separate events simultaneously unless something like a mind field is present. Take a compass out of your pocket anywhere on earth, shake it, and a few seconds later the wobbly needle will always settle pointing north. If every person on the planet did this at exactly twelve midnight, billions of compasses would be doing the same thing simultaneously, a fact that doesn’t surprise us because we know that the Earth’s magnetic field is responsible. It would be absurd to claim that each compass decided randomly to pick north.