Monday, January 23, 2006


Science is that human activity in which we aim to show towards nature that respect that in a democracy we endeavor to show towards each other."

There is no doubt my views are biased. For all the wrong reasons I have cited the questions about how I see, has been strongly encouraged. There is no leader for me in this question( driven in my own research), with something that lead me through the mathematics and divergences from Euclidean perspectve.

It was joined on a level with the geometrical implications of GR conclusions and assignments to Rienmann's positive views. Held in context of his teacher, I have given respect to the Gausssian approach of thinking, and definitions, assigned Hyperspace. If I see Gaussian coordinates as viable, then how shall I refrain myself from seeing in such spaces?

So of course this is troubling to me, that if I was to proclaim my true belief in the religiousity of stringevangelism, then how could I ever give someone the clear and concise picture of this graduation?

So shall I put aside my views of the translation given to hyperspatial views, in context of all the "colorings" I have given the "dynamical relation" of what is not seen, and is hidden, I want to understand this better, from the layman point of view.

So a strong debate needs to be fuelled in regards to the validation process of what hyperspace actually means. Has it been a means to an effort to geoemtrically assign right thinking through the stages of what we have been given to perspective. That the beginning of this universe, had circumstances given to micro perspective views, had lost touch with the validation process, that this geometry, could have ever given credence in mathematical basis. There are no physics at that level, yet my view had been reduced to the superfluid.

While "the debate" is not mine, by layman status, I do follow the logic.

Deflating Hyperspace" by: David Pacchioli (Research/Penn State, Vol. 16, no. 4 (December, 1995))

For Chernosky, a Ph.D. candidate in English literature, this isn't exactly the same thing as asking what hyperspace means. Hyperspace seems to mean a lot of things, and then again not to mean much at all; its meaning shifts with the user, if not with the wind. It is, Charnesky writes, "an almost empty signifier capable of almost limitless application."

"This fuzziness," he adds in person, "is its power." It is also a quality that puts hyperspace in rather crowded company. Our language is loaded with terms appropriated from science for use in popular discourse. Along the way, the borrowed word's highly technical, narrowly precise -- not to say arcane -- meaning is typically transformed. What emerges is a fluttering, eye-catching, all-purpose concept that can be used interchangeably for explaining the weather or selling toothpaste.

So conduct becoming, and of what I asked of others I am working to see this transition through. How I still believe in "my God, my religiousneess, and faith in humanities struggle for perfection" and still offer, perspective here, while biased?

No one speaks here so I have to lead myself through intuitive journies, if there is not the willingness at other points in the blogopshere for this debate to take place. Of course, in my silent way I will try and be fair. I like to thank Peter for the toning down that has taken place.

What views have been put out there then that we could answer and put aside comparative functions to "alien cultures" and all the sort, to speak a truth that would move perception accordingly.

Are mathematcians divided in this case?

Hyperspace(23 Jan 2006)

Hyperspace theories are concerned with theoretical systems that have more than the familiar three spatial dimensions. Hyperspace theories are largely a mathematical theory but their developers often attempt to make them of use to physicists. Hyperspace theorists generally believe that the laws of nature are simpler in higher dimensions

What are Degrees of Freedom

If we travel to Peter Woit's site, can we point to the article introduced and go from there? If I quote the next source above, then this would have given reason to wonder if the trailing thoughts of those who wished to deal with this(above Wiki article and references), might create recognition of some of the things Peter Woit is describing.

So lets open it here then.

Einstein Has Left the Building
Published: January 1, 2006 NYTimes

Today, government spending on physics research has stagnated, and the number of Americans pursuing doctorates has plunged to its lowest level since the early 1960's. Especially as represented by best sellers like "A Brief History of Time," by Stephen Hawking, and "The Elegant Universe," by Brian Greene, physics has also become increasingly esoteric, if not downright escapist. Many of physics' best and brightest are obsessed with fulfilling a task that occupied Einstein's latter years: finding a "unified theory" that fuses quantum physics and general relativity, which are as incompatible, conceptually and mathematically, as plaid and polka dots. But pursuers of this "theory of everything" have wandered into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality. In his new book "Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond," the physicist Lawrence Krauss frets that his colleagues' belief in hyperspace theories in spite of the lack of evidence will encourage the insidious notion that science "is merely another kind of religion."

Krauss and Susskind versus Horgan

Peter Woit:
I don’t see Horgan here criticizing the attempt to quantize gravity as “frivolous”. His criticism of physicists as having “wandered into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality”, is a justifiable one that deserves to be seriously addressed. Krauss and Susskind’s comment that Horgan would be surprised that both of them think that new degrees of freedom will be needed to characterize elementary particle physics doesn’t seem to have any basis in fact. Horgan isn’t making broad claims that physicists shouldn’t look for new degrees of freedom, he is very specifically referring to the use of extra space-time dimensions.

No comments:

Post a Comment