Pages

Showing posts with label Turtles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Turtles. Show all posts

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Turtles and Elephants

There is this notion that to work with different species and incorporate them, it some how makes it more natural an explanation?(guilty):) I guess I am guilty of same and more, by using geometrical progressiveness in place of the propensity for nature to be revealing itself in varying degrees. It was always there for inspection?

So anyway this clip I took from a previous post on, "Who said it?" charts the example I give currently in line with Bee's Backreaction: Turtles all the way up I did not go beyond the introduction, and assume it was not Davies talk. I was cut off at 14 meg while the whole talk is much longer. I'll have to try again tonight(08 sep 2008).

I still have yet to download Davies talk, given the constraints the work schedule limits with regard to the "intranet."

But just reading briefly Dr. Who's position and Markk suggestion that Dr. Who is confusing model with reality.

Bold and italicized were added by me.

The Coleman-Mandula theorem, named after Sidney Coleman and Jeffrey Mandula, is a no-go theorem in theoretical physics. It states that the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincaré group, must be Lorentz scalars.

In other words, every quantum field theory satisfying certain technical assumptions about its S-matrix that has non-trivial interactions can only have a symmetry Lie algebra which is always a direct product of the Poincare group and an internal group if there is a mass gap: no mixing between these two is possible. As the authors say in their introduction, "We prove a new theorem on the impossibility of combining space-time and internal symmetries in any but a trivial way."[1]


First off let me give you an example and you tell me how the idea of any bulk perspective given to graviton understanding will not have it's examples in terms of Lagrangian in space? Serve to help one graduate in terms of gravities when looking at the universe?

Are there no other mechanism that details the Coleman Mandula action other then a multiversity idea in terms of the false vacuum to the true?

I encourage such topological understanding given to a larger format when looking at WMAP of the global perspective. Incidences within the universe give way to a larger depiction of the anomalies generated in perceived examples of monopoles generated in Sean Carroll's group think.

That such concentrations in graviton densities would have an impact on our perceptions in terms of Lagrangian.

If one were to say that any manifold generated at the perception of microscopic views were indicative of a larger topological suggestion in the WMAP, would this then not account for an impression of 10 sup-500-/sup(only written this way because comment section will not allow "sup" html discription)?

Gravities had to be inclusive at all stages and manifold expressions part of this cosmological view?

Best,

Valuing Negativity by Mark Trodden

The basic point is that if one assumes that the generators of the internal symmetry group are commuting operators (and that their commutation relations define the group - i.e. that they comprise a Lie algebra), then the only possible total symmetry is a direct product of the space-time symmetries (the PoincarĂƒ© group) and the internal symmetry group. This is what they meant by trivial in the abstract.

If this had been the end of the story, then bosons and fermions (and therefore force carriers and matter) would be destined to forever remain distinct. But here comes the loophole. The 1975 Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem (after Rudolf Haag, Jan Lopuszanski, and Martin Sohnius) pointed out that if one relaxes one of the assumptions, and allows anticommuting operators as generators of the symmetry group, then there is a possible non-trivial unification of internal and space-time symmetries. Such a symmetry is called supersymmetry and, as you know, constitutes a large part of current research into particle physics.

No-go theorems are fun in physics because they formalize where the important barriers lie and provide guidance about the directions of future attacks on the problem in question. Negative results in general, although not quite as glamorous or exciting, are still great stuff. We should celebrate them. Plus, we don’t want to be like the medical community do we?


Identify the early universe in the QGP perspective needed some way in which to limit reductionism points of view and by incorporating relativity at that level, such an expression then are imparted to a more global manifold detail based on a larger progressive geometry perspective of the universe.

Universe speeding up? From the inside/out this details such a connection in my view.

Best,


This was done to verify the statements made in two comments there and to show a comment made at cosmic variance's "Lopsided Universe" were related exactly to the points I am currently making in regard to a point of view shared by Dr. Who and a consequential statement by Markk in terms of the multiverse and bubble nucleations.

Sean Carroll:But if you peer closely, you will see that the bottom one is the lopsided one — the overall contrast (representing temperature fluctuations) is a bit higher on the left than on the right, while in the untilted image at the top they are (statistically) equal. (The lower image exaggerates the claimed effect in the real universe by a factor of two, just to make it easier to see by eye.)
See The Lopsided Universe-. Basically the comments I have made in this post by Sean have remained intact although toward the end I think it was thought I might have gone to far?

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Turtles All The Way Down


"Turtles all the way down" refers to an infinite regression belief about the nature of the universe (see Cosmology).
For Hawking, the turtle story is one of two accounts of the nature of the universe; he asserts that the turtle theory is patently ridiculous, but admits that his own theories may be just as ridiculous. "Only time will tell," he concludes.

For Geertz, however, the story is patently wise, teaching us that we will never get to the bottom of things.

This comparison also reveals a difference between the positivist and interpretive, or hermeneutic approach to the interpretation of myths. Positivists read myths literally and find them false and foolish; interpretivists read them metaphorically or allegorically and find them true and profound.

The phrase "turtles all the way down", or sometimes simply "a turtle problem" are often used to describe other infinite regressions. For instance, the question of "who polices the police" may be regarded as a turtle problem.


There is a question looming on my mind abut what reality is? There is the idea of the "infinite regress" of all particle reductions as we venture to "what may be" the first cause?

It is not necessary for me to hold any views of religious intent here other then to say that any person is quite capable of acting as the student and placing in front of them what the answer to that question of reality is. Then it becomes to them what they have satisfied what reality had explained.

Now this is not easy for me to answer such a question, and think about what had come before? In terms of those who asked this same question of the self, and what it may mean to you. Who am I. What makes "you" who you are?

So is it subjective that first cause may have something in association with the cosmology at large, in this question as to how the universe came into being, or is it a redundant feature to ask such a question and just accept what is?

NASA/JPL/Keck
Perspective on the past. Quasar spectra recorded at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii imply that a fundamental physical constant may have been increasing slightly over the past six billion years.

If we are "not aware" does the universe end? Do the fundamental laws of science not exist because you do not exist?

While I do not have time to complete this post I am going to add to it because there are concepts that are very appealing here in our investigations that serve to be looked at. I do not contest any fundamental constant here, other then to look at them as comparative features of our association with the natural world.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Big Bang:One Man's Change of Heart

Thanks Paul

One definitely needs some perspective around this and how such information is given. I refer here for consideration, about perspective, and how it can be exploited for further consideration on what is emitted, and what manifests in weak gravitational field measure, as neutrino effects(quantum gravity).

Microperspective and methods of examination, raise the issue fo cerenkov radiation and what it tells us about such interactive phases?

Here in refractive consideration, ICECUBE, paints a different picture of what began somewhere else in cosmological high energy collisions. "Neutrinos and strangelets" are part of the developing scenario with which the universe has consequences, if held to the initial conditons of our universe. You had to know where to look for these.

Plato:
"Nothing" in stated form was and always is "nothing" which would have not allowed any further discussion. "Zero" in our conversation is a much different kind of thinking. I understood that as well. "Zero" would have been the equivalent to "i" in the Dirac's matrices?



Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.


I wanted to add this post, and to centralize some references that were found that helped form my perspective on "nothing." What! I guess I'm done?:)

Seriously, this had to be confronted, and who better then from our layman perspectve, then the admission of a leaders in science, who can change theirs mind after some thinking?

Cosmological Constant SeeSaw in Quantum CosmologyMichael McGuigan

Lubos shares his perspective on linked section of titled paper above.

One interpretation of the coupling of Wheeler-DeWitt functions is that it originates from topology changing effects. Topology change seems to be inevitable in quantum gravity. To treat topology change properly is a very complicated calculation using today’s mathematical tools.


I wanted to add these links here for consideration, as well what link given by Paul for consideration in regards to Penrose, the figure of the man's change of heart that ighlight's this post. In Phase transitions the comments have been quite enlightening.

Before the Big Bang BBC News, with Stephen Sackur
Sir Roger Penrose has developed a new theory on what happened before the Big Bang.

These pages were created by Jack "Turtle" Wong, Spring 1999

  • First of all, how do we think the universe began?

  • The Big Bang theory.

  • Resolving the inadequacies of the big bang theory.

  • The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Stephen Hawking's
    ideas.

  • The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Neil Turok's ideas.

  • The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: the result of merging
    two interesting theories.

  • Is the search over?

  • Bibliography / Further Reading


  • See Also:



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

  • Ekpyroptic and cyclical models