Are there Extra Dimensions of Space?

Some of these issues in relation to the LHC are what I tried to explain to Searosa.

HOTA computer rendition of 4-trillion-degree Celsius quark-gluon plasma created in a demonstration of what scientists suspect shaped cosmic history.

Here's what has to be considered. There is a calculated energy value to the collision process. You add that up as all the constituents of that process, and what's left is, so much energy left to be discerned as particulate expressions as beyond that collision point. This may not be truly an accurate portrayal yet it is one that allows perspective to consider the spaces at such microscopic levels for consideration.

The perspective of valuations with regard to the LHC is whether or not there is sufficient energy within the confines of LHC experiments in which to satisfy the questions about extra those dimensions. It seems the parameters of those decisions seem to be sufficient?

**Author(s)**

Alex Buche-University of Western Ontario / Perimeter Institute

It is believed that in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang, our universe was dominated by a strongly interacting phase of nuclear matter at extreme temperatures. An impressive experimental program at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island has been studying the properties of this nuclear plasma with some rather surprising results. We outline how there may be a deep connection between extra-dimensional gravity of String Theory and the fundamental theories of subatomic particles can solve the mystery of the near-ideal fluid properties of the strongly coupled nuclear plasma.

The QGP has directed attention to a method of expression with regard to that collision point.

First direct observation of jet quenching. |

At the recent seminar, the LHC’s dedicated heavy-ion experiment, ALICE, confirmed that QGP behaves like an ideal liquid, a phenomenon earlier observed at the US Brookhaven Laboratory’s RHIC facility. This question was indeed one of the main points of this first phase of data analysis, which also included the analysis of secondary particles produced in the lead-lead collisions. ALICE's results already rule out many of the existing theoretical models describing the physics of heavy-ions.

The equations of string theory specify the arrangement of the manifold configuration, along with their associated branes (green) and lines of force known as flux lines (orange). The physics that is observed in the three large dimensions depends on the size and the structure of the manifold: how many doughnut-like "handles" it has, the length and circumference of each handle, the number and locations of its branes, and the number of flux lines wrapped around each doughnut.

Early on looking at spaces, it was a struggle for me to understand how extra dimensions would be explained. It was easy using a coordinated frame of reference as x,y,z, yet, how much did you have to go toward seeing that rotation around each of those arrows of direction would add greater depth of perception about such spaces?

It's easier if you just draw the picture.

In superstring theory the extra dimensions of spacetime are sometimes conjectured to take the form of a 6-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold, which led to the idea of mirror symmetry.

The benefit of phenomenological approaches in experimental processes to attempt to answer these theoretical points of views.

The first results on supersymmetry from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have been analysed by physicists and some are suggesting that the theory may be in trouble. Data from proton collisions in both the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) and ATLAS experiments have shown no evidence for supersymmetric particles – or sparticles – that are predicted by this extension to the Standard Model of particle physics.Will the LHC find supersymmetry Kate McAlpine ?

Thank you Tommaso Dorigo

**Also see**:

*Beautiful theory collides with smashing particle data."*

Bee:That the space-time of Einstein's Special and General Relativity might not be fundamental plays a central rôle in our quest for quantum gravity.

ReplyDeleteOf course then this would then eliminate certain models. To have something like space-time emerge out of, then one cannot ignore it arising out of a complex issue?

The caveat might be then, your interpretation of extra dimensions, and I appreciate the evolving dimensions summary.

I might fall under a false pretense conceptualization of a Q<->Q measure(please correct if it appears wrong) and the amount of energy of such an environ.

It would have us question with regard to that relation of extra dimension as an environ laced with energetic valuations as particulates of the standard modelthat amount too, parts of the whole energy valuation?

Then I have trouble thinking again about how the real world looks and how something one can pass through it, as easily as a boat that could cut through water.

A number system like Riemann's Hypothesis, "like a sieve" eventually an arrow snakes out of as if contained within the Ulam spiral. This is a larger perspective on that valuations of a chain reaction, yet it is par and parcel of the defining substrates of reality as an example.

Best,

9:37 AM, March 08, 2011

I referred earlier to Dyson quote for examination of a forward looking examination of such spaces, to have it concluded as easily so.

ReplyDeleteIt is not just an willy-nilly proposal that extra dimensions serve to help us look at the depth of the world around us, or that some construct methodological process of Flat land exists as an geometrical expression of the way we see the world leading topological dissertation of expression?

On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry.Bernhard Riemann

Translated by William Kingdon Clifford

[Nature, Vol. VIII. Nos. 183, 184, pp. 14--17, 36, 37.]

It is known that geometry assumes, as things given, both the notion of space and the first principles of constructions in space. She gives definitions of them which are merely nominal, while the true determinations appear in the form of axioms. The relation of these assumptions remains consequently in darkness; we neither perceive whether and how far their connection is necessary, nor a priori, whether it is possible.

From Euclid to Legendre (to name the most famous of modern reforming geometers) this darkness was cleared up neither by mathematicians nor by such philosophers as concerned themselves with it. The reason of this is doubtless that the general notion of multiply extended magnitudes (in which space-magnitudes are included) remained entirely unworked. I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of constructing the notion of a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It will follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of different measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular case of a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary consequence that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general notions of magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other conceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from experience. Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from which the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from the nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be several systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure-relations of space - the most important system for our present purpose being that which Euclid has laid down as a foundation. These matters of fact are - like all matters of fact - not necessary, but only of empirical certainty; they are hypotheses. We may therefore investigate their probability, which within the limits of observation is of course very great, and inquire about the justice of their extension beyond the limits of observation, on the side both of the infinitely great and of the infinitely small.

Best,

9:51 AM, March 08, 2011

Bee you have to build a framework that is consistent with the ideas of model apprehension of dimensional understandings in order for any model to appear.

ReplyDelete"Without this foundational basis" how are you to work backward from a complex issue, to arrive at any simplicity?

Einstein:

I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have just set forth, because without it I should have been unable to formulate the theory of relativity. ... In a system of reference rotating relatively to an inert system, the laws of disposition of rigid bodies do not correspond to the rules of Euclidean geometry on account of the Lorentz contraction; thus if we admit non-inert systems we must abandon Euclidean geometry. ... If we deny the relation between the body of axiomatic Euclidean geometry and the practically-rigid body of reality, we readily arrive at the following view, which was entertained by that acute and profound thinker, H. Poincare:--Euclidean geometry is distinguished above all other imaginable axiomatic geometries by its simplicity. Now since axiomatic geometry by itself contains no assertions as to the reality which can be experienced, but can do so only in combination with physical laws, it should be possible and reasonable ... to retain Euclidean geometry. For if contradictions between theory and experience manifest themselves, we should rather decide to change physical laws than to change axiomatic Euclidean geometry. If we deny the relation between the practically-rigid body and geometry, we shall indeed not easily free ourselves from the convention that Euclidean geometry is to be retained as the simplest. (33-4)

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/EonGeometry.html

10:15 AM, March 08, 2011

Bee:Yes, if spacetime is fundamental instead, that rules out some models, namely those in which it isn't.

ReplyDeleteWas I correct then to see that you had eliminated "that model fundamentally based" on the idea of evolving dimenions that you felt "it was not a fundamental part of the model apprehension based on the phenomenological process "as you see it," and not as it so far remains?

Remember there is still a conformal field theory approach on the surface, as description of the interior of the blackhole?

That result has not changed.

Best,

Why would you abandon a model that understands well the thermodynamic properties?

ReplyDeleteGary Horowitz, Philip Candelas and Andy Strominger Witten showed how string theory can lead to realistic descriptions by compactifying the theory on a higher dimensional manifold known as Calabi Yau manifolds

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

Spacetime in String Theory

While talk is pervasive according too, as the experimental results of LHC proceed in regard to developments of thoughts and theoretic around Super symmetry then how has this model changed with regard to Horowitz plates above?

Historically some things cannot be changed unless the calculations were wrong? Are they wrong?

Should one abandon what is calculable for the want of proving something that is kocher with, while we wait for the energies to do their thing?

Should one abandon theorists?

In 1919, Kaluza sent Albert Einstein a preprint --- later published in 1921 --- that considered the extension of general relativity to five dimensions. He assumed that the 5-dimensional field equations were simply the higher-dimensional version of the vacuum Einstein equation, and that all the metric components were independent of the fifth coordinate. The later assumption came to be known as the cylinder condition. This resulted in something remarkable: the fifteen higher-dimension field equations naturally broke into a set of ten formulae governing a tensor field representing gravity, four describing a vector field representing electromagnetism, and one wave equation for a scalar field. Furthermore, if the scalar field was constant, the vector field equations were just Maxwell's equations in vacuo, and the tensor field equations were the 4-dimensional Einstein field equations sourced by an EM field. In one fell swoop, Kaluza had written down a single covariant field theory in five dimensions that yielded the four dimensional theories of general relativity and electromagnetism. Naturally, Einstein was very interested in this preprint . Voila!:)

Best,

12:13 PM, March 09, 2011

If you can relate to Kaluza in the approach to move forward(projective geometries,) while he was in contact with the developments of relativity, then should not one consider a Geometric analysis, as part of that journey?

ReplyDeleteBest,

12:26 PM, March 09, 2011

Just wanted to say thanks for your patience Bee.

ReplyDeleteJuan Maldacena:

The strings move in a five-dimensional curved space-time with a boundary. The boundary corresponds to the usual four dimensions, and the fifth dimension describes the motion away from this boundary into the interior of the curved space-time. In this five-dimensional space-time, there is a strong gravitational field pulling objects away from the boundary, and as a result time flows more slowly far away from the boundary than close to it. This also implies that an object that has a fixed proper size in the interior can appear to have a different size when viewed from the boundary (Fig. 1). Strings existing in the five-dimensional space-time can even look point-like when they are close to the boundary. Polchinski and Strassler1 show that when an energetic four-dimensional particle (such as an electron) is scattered from these strings (describing protons), the main contribution comes from a string that is close to the boundary and it is therefore seen as a point-like object. So a string-like interpretation of a proton is not at odds with the observation that there are point-like objects inside it.

1:10 PM, March 09, 2011