Every picture held in mind is a link to other pictures? The larger context of the universe, is now seen in how our minds evolving such a reality through such thought constructs( it's bits and pieces) that it is not just words and equations any more, but the understanding that this picture can includes more then one thousand words of discriptive power.

It had to be really compelling that such thoughts illustrated here, had a whole geometric history underneath it. Some might of thought it again as "ad hoc," but the truly deeper perception exists whether they like to think it does not.

Lubos reminds one that no such geoemtry exists or new phsyics in this place, but it had to come from somewhere, no matter what you called the constituents of this reality.

**What is Quantum Gravity?**

Quantum gravity is the field devoted to finding the microstructure of spacetime. Is space continuous? Does spacetime geometry make sense near the initial singularity? Deep inside a black hole? These are the sort of questions a theory of quantum gravity is expected to answer. The root of our search for the theory is a exploration of the quantum foundations of spacetime. At the very least, quantum gravity ought to describe physics on the smallest possible scales - expected to be 10-35 meters. (Easy to find with dimensional analysis: Build a quantity with the dimensions of length using the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's constant.) Whether quantum gravity will yield a revolutionary shift in quantum theory, general relativity, or both remains to be seen.

Some would like to think themselves "so pure" that they could not plant their own poison?

It is a hard thing to remain pure in our feelings of sharing, once our egos intrude and we fight each other, for some dominance like some animal uneducated, while we dawn such clothing of the civilized being?

While earlier entries have been spoken to in terms of, what analogies can do for us in what and how we like to portray the world. Such analogies do have to be carefully considered. It okay if we speak around each other whie we move peception forward. We do not "own" any of it?:)

Lubos's last statement of the blog entry made here and linked here is of course most correct, and an understanding of the early universe? It is very hard to to see how such dynamical world could fit our views of a reality, as we peer into, with our imaginations.

With my imagination?

If One thought about creativity and the undertanding of where these deeper insights of the soul reside and emerge from, how could they emerge from the very origins, while holding the views, peering deep into space? Peering deeply, into the space inside?

So fanciful creatures we are, that we create all these models and thought constructs to help us along to concretize what the thought construct could do for us, as a measure and yardstick of that reality? So we might playfully use such analogies to open the mind to another possibility?

**Sonofusion - star in a jar**

**Lubos Motl**:

The authors admit that the number of events is not enough to build a power plant. However, there is some controversy whether the number of fusion events is what the authors say or whether it is lower by a few dozens of orders of magnitude, as implied by physics.

The mechanism behind sonoluminiscence remains a bit controversial. Claiming that a thermonuclear fusion occurs during sonoluminiscence is among the more conservative explanations. The physicist Claudia Eberlein argued that the correct explanation is that the imploding bubbles create sonic black holes and the flashes are the counterpart of Hawking radiation as the sonic black hole evaporates. You should not think that this is an example of a very, very low energy quantum gravity because the sonic black holes have no connection with the scales of gravity. It is not a supercollider in a glass of beer. But let me admit that as an undergrad, I was excited by this proposal, at least for a few minutes, but I apparently forgot the details of that encounter.

Yes, your last statement sums it up Lubos.

Now, why had such model had been gainfully employed in my analogies?

The need for a leading construct and all the geometries to be included in a particluar way? Would they match the very expressions of our universe?

While education would indeed detail the complications and ideas around such models, it is not without simplicity, that such understanding could be pictured first( Dirac comes to mind(?)), and then contain the thousand words, equations, that are to come afterward? This all evolves forma universal expressinand idea I have about how such expression are contained inthe new expressions we see of this universe.

So it is by looking for this thread of thought and emerging property of such thought, that we would have to trace it back? How would you do that if you did not believe in your interactiveness with the universe at large. An "deductive/inductive," relation with reality that one may have morphed in the exchange from "one moment to the next?" Becoming.

This is a evolving thread of growth that somehow goes on in our ever education and open mind,least we be restraint by our very own convictions and said, "here is where I lie?"

## No comments:

## Post a Comment