From what we have learned so far about string theory, the natural starting point for doing physics which makes contact with our world seems to be to start in 9+1 dimensional spacetime. A modern perspective tells us to go further: Strings are not the only important objects in the game, but extended objects of more dimensions called “branes” are also important. (The term comes from starting with “membrane” which is a two dimensional object, calling it a “2-brane” and then having the idea of a “3-brane”, “4-brane” etc. Or just “brane” when you want to be non-specific.) It turns out that we need to consider these objects too. Fully non-perturbative considerations also encourage us to consider “M-theory”, which (at least at low energy) appears as an eleven dimensional (10+1) theory with no strings at all, just branes of a couple of sorts.

Do we suspect we had gone so far from reality to think about science we had somehow left our thought processes out of the loop, for what is demanded from science? I still like to think that with what ever process that one like Lee Smolin would want to talk abut on a philosophical level had it's counterpart in some process that I am speaking about below.

It's only fitting that while one could deal with the "abstractness spoken by Clifford" that we could have of course said the same thing with Lee Smolin's philosophical sojourns. In regards to "time," as an element of where we had taken reductionism too. To the depths of perception that speak to the very early universe. The microseconds of our universe spoken too, settled here to the 3+1 world of matter constituents.

So you see it began someplace else in dimensional perspective that is not so disconnected from the reality with which we like to work.

Experimentalists probe the structure of the proton by scattering electrons (white line) off quarks which interact by exchanging a quantum of light (wavy line) known as a photon.See Compton and Graviton Scatterings?

How did one get to that level with which to discern the nature of the energy in relation to the photon? I have assume a certain position, in terms of what the photon represents as it speak to the very colouring of the gravitational field.

So how was one to look at the landscape without understanding that there is a measure to the nature of the gravitational field represented by that Photon?

IN relation to the landscape. This is not what stood out when I went to look at Lee Smolin’s reference to chapter 5 with regards to comment #148 I hope this shift is okay for posting?

Just drawing attention to the dates of publication and comparison of views. I was thinking of “Benchmarks” in terms of the progressions, that could have been marked as successes, and help one to realize that there was still a process unfolding?

I thought these two views countering one another?

A second obstacle arises from the theory’s reliance on the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking to explain why each of the elementary particles we see in the world has different properties. While this is a beautiful idea, there is a certain ad hoc quality to how it is realized. To this date, no one has so far observed a Higg’s particle and we have only a very imprecise idea of their properties. Page 61, The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin ISBN 0-19-510837-x 1997

As a Lay person I was thinking of the word “ad hoc” in Lee’s statement, and wonder if this is still reflected in his views of today. This was a build up and precursor to the statement about string theory in question according to Lee’s book statement??

Unravelling String Theory,by Edward Witten 29 Dec 2005

String theory is the only known generalization of relativistic quantum field theory that makes sense. The framework of special relativity plus quantum mechanics is so rigid that it practically forces quantum field theory upon us. The tightness of the modern framework is one of the main reasons why physicists were able to discover what has become the standard model of elementary particles.

Have we moved past this today and “all” in agreement?

Of course being the layman I am it is important that information that is given on Clifford's board is correct. One can quickly swipe out any statement quite easily without understanding the historical aspect of what Lee Smolin is suggesting. What is he suggesting?

Lee Smolin Mar 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am

For one thing the existence of the string landscape has been, at least for me, a great stimulus to revising the notion of time in quantum cosmology.Beyond that the context in which the role of time in quantum cosmology has to be discussedis that of attempts to formulate background independent theories, to the extent that efforts are made to construct a manifestly background independent framework for string theory in the compact case-with no asymptotic symmetries or boundary conditions, the problem of time has to be confronted.

Now of course after this I had been thinking when Lee Smolin made his statement in the selected paragraph above, some things that I had been thinking about.

Gravitational Mass for a Photon

The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon

The gravitational potential energy is then

When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

Escape Energy for Photon

If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then

Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

For the longest time I have tried to understand what could be used to answer Lee's statement above. While I have no substituted I looked at what the physics had to say and what we may learn from the horizon.

The elephant and the event horizon by Amanda GefterHawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.See here for article.

This process itself. Would it not instigate the position of Lee to ask what can be revealed in the nature of the photon? While there is calorimetric measures designed in Glast, was it not with the understanding that "high energy" photons could exist? We are using the "escape velocity of the photon" to discern the nature of the blackhole?

This is Lee's current measure of time in any discussion?

See this link for what was deleted from Clifford's blog and I will try and expand and clear up what was quick to be discarded. You had to follow the comments in that section, to get the idea of what "entanglement may mean" for what we see of what exists on the boundary of the blackhole,as a indicator represented by the colour of that photon. Now of course I have exceeded the perspective limited by the 3+1 as a Relativity, yet I go as far as implement the fabric of the spactime as a correlate of what we see of that photon.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment