Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Getting Ducks in a Row

Energising the quest for 'big theory'
By Paul Rincon

We are at a point where experiments must guide us, we cannot make progress without them," explains Jim Virdee, a particle physicist at Imperial College London

Good to see Joanne contributions here as well as Marks.

Even though Dissident throws up tidbits for the "unlikely scenario of Blackholes" that devour? These were early fears that were propogated by those of us who did not understand. Maybe the new TV show will make itself known here? What has our past shown in this regard?

Peter Steinberg

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don't make a "real" black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase's point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a "dual" black hole. But what does "dual" mean in this context? It's not "two-ness" in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

I was equally dismayed by the understanding that this methods were not understood by dissident, as to the value of Pierre Auger's views containing the very ideas that we see in the enviroment around us. Is it an alternative to how we see particle interactions? Of course. John Ellis made this point very clear, as I have demonstrated through out this site, gaining perspective as spoken by Ellis on information given.

The Fly's Eye and the Oh My God Particle John Ellis was instrumental in opening up perspective here. What is happening outside of collision reductionist processes of the colliders

I get a little philosophical myself sometimes, with the hope that "pure thought" can lead me to the very math structure that would be most appropriate. But like anything, there are so many maths in which to talk about the world in such an abstract way, one wonders if they are actually talking about reality? But they are are. :)

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

The ideas around KK are also included, like most, I have a lot to learn. But the KK tower is explanatory about the a lot of things in relation to the energy values that are being assigned here? Just diffrent ways at looking at scattering amplitudes and counting might have looked if we took nature to gluonic perceptions? A granularaization? While at such levels then there are no geometries in which anything can emerge?

There’s no other necessary connection to stringy physics except that it’s a KK theory (I guess the compactified dimensions can still be pretty big compared to the Planck length…perhaps they have to be?). It’s not obviously related to quantum gravity, anyway.

So how do you include such "weak field "manifestation in your global perspective(standard model). Some things are recorded, and some can't be seen? So what is the glue that binds:)

A collision had produced the "superfluid" has no place in quantum gravity issues?

He4 came from information the beginning, that a Giddings or a Steinberg might have given us about the nature of the "source" of this collision? How would such a thing from this place have figured, this was a place in which to begin to count? So we write it in and hope that such views in context of this "unitary nature" will have revealled all the tragetories of the scatterings, to have said this is a complete view?

Lubos Motl:
When you add a force that you want to treat perturbatively, which should be possible if the success of QED is reproduced by your quantum theory of gravity and electromagnetism, then you are expanding around "g=0" where "g" is the gauge coupling. In quantum gravity, there is a new ultraviolet cutoff "g.M_{Planck}" above which the effective theory breaks down. If "g" goes to zero, then this scale goes to zero, too. The theory therefore breaks down at all scales. You can't expand around the point where gravity is the strongest force because a quantum theory of gravity in which gravity is stronger than other forces is inconsistent.

No comments:

Post a Comment