Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Trembling, in the Unshakeable?

There is a story on this page that unfolds the more you enter the depth of perception that is offered. If you click on the picture supplied below it takes you into a deeper "cavern of thinking", that relates the depth of ideas that Lubos talks about, with ways in which the standard model might have been used.

I don't say this is the way, but just that in observation, I delved deeper into the meaning of what is not apparent on first look, had me realize that the way history can be rewritten, with a artistic inclination could hold a scientific mind to valuation of what others who demand of this reasoning to be sound.

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of general relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

On observation alone, who might judge what might issue responsibility, and we have one man's take here. I thought, why waste having hard work deleted, when I can explain myself here:)It always amazes me that such theories were allowed expression and crackpotential meter status recognition, were allowed to live well on, "Not Even Wrong."

New York Times on Toronto Panel Discussion

In Comment Section:

Peter Woit:I’ve always personally felt that the real question is not how to quantize gravity, but how to quantize gravity in some way that tells us how the geometry of space-time is related to the geometry of the standard model.

So Tony Smith opens the door to crackpot alley, and the chances of who might issue forward with possible scenarios, can include, not just the sane in respect of one man's view, but others to comment regardless of the stature with which he might impose a strict recogniton of what is required.

Do they all follow this regiment?

So while this topic was going on I thought about something, or rather someone, who might fit the requirement of Peters statement. Why not my words, and the perspective of another, who saw historically one way, had revisionistic insight, to redraw the picture in a way, that such a view could be extolled in Peter's Comment?

While the Standard Model has been very successful in describing most of the phenomemon that we can experimentally investigate with the current generation of particle acceleraters, it leaves many unanswered questions about the fundamental nature of the universe. The goal of modern theoretical physics has been to find a "unified" description of the universe.

This indeed leaves a "pretty big question mark", but Prof.dr R.H. Dijkgraaf might he learnt to hide this question mark in a place where few with good observational skills might find it? So how lovely indeed, that such a veiw that Peter Woit asks for, might have been embued in artistically thesis of the good professor?

See if this "picture" rings a bell?:)

The dynamical nature of this movement, is the status of what quantum gravity might have brought forward in unseen lines and such, that Prof.dr R.H. Dijkgraaf maybe, just maybe, the answer lies here? What do you think Peter Woit?

No comments:

Post a Comment