Showing posts with label Faraday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faraday. Show all posts

Friday, February 02, 2007

Change that Had Consequences

In the post, Hermetic Ties, I showed how historically information was engraved, crafted, into the woodcuts, for knowledge based on alchemist interests. I further explained the process as I have come to know of it in terms of developing this "inquisitive search into the mystery's of what life" is about how the questioning mind of any person can become the "way of the teacher" as well, enclosed within that same person.

The teacher/student relation then is inherent in each of us, that we understand how one can push the other in our inquirers. Comparable to "this Arch of understanding" I spoke about.

Geometrically, I laid this over top of the circle, mandalic in interpretation, that it served to raise the wonder in mind of what is driving this relation of the student with the world around them. "As the teacher" finding consequence to every inquisitive act, in answer.

Such results then become the new and alternate plan to what is used to describe this new found relation. Ways in which the driving force of "wanting to learn" become an inherent "topological feature" of what begins descriptively, now has this inner/outer consequent to "expanding the frontiers of our knowledge base," inherently expanding the "fluttering of this egg of colour" that surrounds each of us.

Debate if you will the words associated to "fluttering of this egg" and ask your self about what science has accomplished in mapping neurological sequences with the patterns of thought in relation to the condensible brain? What it might reveal of the "condensible features." Might such action also reveal in the "outer cover?"

"In 1680, Isaac Newton worked on the abstract problem of gravity and he changed the world. In 1820, Michael Faraday discovered a connection between the exotic phenomena of electricity and magnetism and his discoveries electrified the world. Einstein's 1905 conceptual obsession with space and time led to nuclear energy and the operation of accelerators for knowledge, for cancer therapy and for machines that provide luminescent x-ray photographs of viruses and toxins. In 1897, the "useless" electron was discovered. In 1977, Fermilab discovered the bottom quark and in 1995 the top quark was found. The lessons of history are clear. The more exotic, the more abstract the knowledge, the more profound will be its consequences." Leon Lederman, from an address to the Franklin Institute, 1995

So before this "act of change existed," the position of the student/teacher had already formed a consensus. I was looking to find this place amongst the order of such changes. It became the study I have placed myself "in" as I look to understand what scientists are saying from the "accepted position" they assume. As they work to develop "insight" and "model changes" to what we already know. To push "beyond" these boundaries of thought. The "standard model" perhaps.

That I may give credence to what is hidden by Raphael in "his painting" is to gather a lot of perspective of the history of the times. To have them all resting on the "stairs and ladder of progression" to perfecting this relation "of the inquirer."

The painting serves in this "mandalic sense" to represent the action of Plato and Aristotle as key figures in this relationship of "above and below." Inner and outer. Why their centralized location in the picture

I have been short on time, so the articles that I have read are snippets of the "larger picture" while I can get back to more research.

But the essence "is" that along with "this change with discoveries," scientists have this way about handling things. This has been reiterated by Clifford and others in science. So I just wanted to highlight this. AS part of this fundamental status of moving to ward these consequences and statement of change.

The science press and scientists themselves do science a disservice when they seek to dramatize a discovery by emphasizing that it discredits a previous theory. Such coverage typically does not discuss whether the earlier theory was tentative or whether the new result modifies a well-established but incomplete theory. This dramatization feeds the popular image that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Much is tentative, but much is well understood and unlikely to be discredited. We scientists need to convey more about the status of our knowledge than can be learned from the muddy "most scientists believe" statement. We need our listeners to know what is tentative and what is not so that they understand better the ragged but cumulative progression of science and can use current knowledge effectively, with an understanding of its inherent uncertainties, in personal and political decision making.

So again by giving credence to what scientists have requested by those who are of the science themself, serve as role models for what is accepted, as we investigate and report.

To visit perspective scientists in the know, are not the way in which to say, "hey listen I have found this to be so and so," and have some "revolutionary change." To let them alone, and continue to push the boundaries of the trade by investigating the work that they do, and learn accordingly. To read what they have written, and join in by asking what you are not sure about. Of course depending on the scientist's openness to sharing of themself, realizing "the greater message" can be conveyed to the many.

How did they get to their perspective positions that they know more then what you know and we had not assimilated the required knowledge? What is every statement saying, about what you know of the science "against" what they have learnt and we may lack the comprehensive understanding of what laws we see applied in every case.

Under this whole post exist the thoughts then about Thomas Kuhn and the paradigm as it would have shown itself as "change that had consequence." Only now do you see this relation here while speaking about change and consequence, did you not know that it followed some rules according to some kind of model and research?

Thomas Kuhn

See here for more information on the person, and model perspective. The paragraph is taken to show the connection to the research work already done in the past, on my part. The label as well will reveal earlier thinking as I integrate what I understood of the philosophy, and "other perspectives" as well.

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

The Mathematikoi had Synesthesia?

Pythagoreanism is a term used for the esoteric and metaphysical beliefs held by Pythagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, who were much influenced by mathematics and probably a main inspirational source for Plato and platonism.

Later resurgence of ideas similar to those held by the early Pythagoreans are collected under the term Neopythagoreanism.

The Pythagoreans were called mathematikoi, which means "those that study all1"

To say it is easy in knowing where to begin, is a understatement of what has been an enormous struggle to define the world around me. Indicative of the complications of how one may have seen this world in regards to the "views of a Synesthesist," would have taxed most "science minds" if they had "this inkling" of the complexity this brings to science. Think about what is implied here when one refers to "studying it all?"

So as I lay in the twilight hours of the mind's rest period, there are these things that I am asking of myself, as to how I may point to what is comparative in the "geometric views of science" and what is comparative to the views of that science in relation to examples given of the Synesthesist who sees from a certain position.

Again, my mind falls back in the history of humanities evolution and while the distinctiveness of sectors of that past history, it would not be unkind to draw from that history and present the question of what a Synesthesist might have seen in relation to the numbers?

Create and play with the most beautiful, hypnotic light illusions you have ever seen.

I seen the above in relation to Lubos's post. It would be nice to offer the "equation correlations" to these "colour displays" in string theory?:)


Are you quicker then I then to see that numbers may have had the colour attached to their very nature, that "all things" then my have had this basis of "music" and "colour association" thrown "into the mix/cross over points"" to call it the Pythagorean?

So imagine being strapped with the job to start from some place, and move any mind to consider the complexity of "departing euclidean views" to meld with the "non-euclidean reality" assigned our everyday species to "what is natural" from straight lines and such. Has now moved to a dynamical world of "Faraday lines" Gauss's role as "teacher of Gaussian Co-ordinates" to views of his student, "Riemann?"

This equation provides a simple relation among the three sides of a right triangle so that if the lengths of any two sides are known, the length of the third side can be found.

Should one be so crude as to see that straight lines can have a "greater implication of design" that one would not have seen, had they not understood Gauss's work? That if you moved yourself to natures's domain, how many lines are really that straight?

Ask your self then what is natural and what was man-made? That these straight lines are indeed an order to mankind's "ode to building and living," while there are these "other worldly visions" supplied in the "non euclidean realm" existed free from man's definition of nature.

8.6 On Gauss's Mountains
One of the most famous stories about Gauss depicts him measuring the angles of the great triangle formed by the mountain peaks of Hohenhagen, Inselberg, and Brocken for evidence that the geometry of space is non-Euclidean. It's certainly true that Gauss acquired geodetic survey data during his ten-year involvement in mapping the Kingdom of Hanover during the years from 1818 to 1832, and this data included some large "test triangles", notably the one connecting the those three mountain peaks, which could be used to check for accumulated errors in the smaller triangles. It's also true that Gauss understood how the intrinsic curvature of the Earth's surface would theoretically result in slight discrepancies when fitting the smaller triangles inside the larger triangles, although in practice this effect is negligible, because the Earth's curvature is so slight relative to even the largest triangles that can be visually measured on the surface. Still, Gauss computed the magnitude of this effect for the large test triangles because, as he wrote to Olbers, "the honor of science demands that one understand the nature of this inequality clearly". (The government officials who commissioned Gauss to perform the survey might have recalled Napoleon's remark that Laplace as head of the Department of the Interior had "brought the theory of the infinitely small to administration".) It is sometimes said that the "inequality" which Gauss had in mind was the possible curvature of space itself, but taken in context it seems he was referring to the curvature of the Earth's surface. 2

The Interior Probabilities Manifests as Colour

How foolish would I be then to tell you that "Heaven' Ephemeral Qualities," are coloured to the degrees that "gravity defines itself in time?" That "model building" had to take place, so that the understanding of where this gravity explains itself, could find correlations to humans experiencing "durations of time" within in the living of day to day.

Again I move one back to what this "egg of fluttering does" as of physiological consequent, as the correlations of those same colours manifest in the qualities of those same thought patterns. Those experiences mapped to MRI imaging are condensible features "in the physical" do not explain the "Ephemeral Quality" assigned to each of these regions. Had one knew how to switch around the "value of consciousness" to the condensible feature as brain matter, one would have known about the happenings taking place "outside" of our bodies.

It is here to then that I take from the "metaphysical realm" and bring it into the relations of what is happening in the physical brain. While history has shown groups who gathered to see what was happening, saw "human experiencing" as they went through these colour modes.

1 Hemmenway, Pryia – Divine Proportion pp66, Sterling Publishing, ISBN 1-4027-3522-7
2 Reflections on Relativity8.6 On Guass's Mountain

Friday, January 05, 2007

Images or Numbers By Themself

“Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate” (cited by Ivars Peterson in Science News, 5/4/2002).

I have an idea in mind here that will be slow to show because I am not sure how it is supposed to be laid out. So maybe by showing these numbers by them self? What use, if one did not, or was not able to see in another way?

Figure 22.10: Double slit diffraction

I looked at the "straight lines" of Thomas Young's trajectories of photon emission and while quite understandably shown to be of consequence in this post "Interference." I was more interested in how something could start off in one place and do this rotation of sorts, and then come back for examination again in the real world. The Spectrum

What a novel idea to have the methods used by the predecessors like Maxwell, to have been united from Faraday's principals? To have Maxwell's equation Gaussian in interpretation of Riemann geometry, somehow, united by the geometries of Einstein and defined as gravity?

But it is also in mind "that the image" has to be put here also before the numbers can show them self. What use these numbers if I do not transcend them to what they can imply in images, to know that the thinking here has to be orientated in such a way that what was simple and straight forward, could have non-euclidean orientations about it?

Michael Faraday (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was a British scientist (a physicist and chemist) who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.

So one reads history in a lot of ways to learn of what has manifested into todays thinking. What lead from "Gaussian coordinates in an "non-euclidean way" to know that it had it's relation in today's physics. To have it included in how we see the consequences of GR in the world. It had been brought together for our eyes in what the photon can do in the gravitational field.

Our Evolution to Images

The Albrecht Durer's Magic Square

Ulam's Spiral

Pascal's Triangle

Evolve to What?

Who was to know what Leonard Susskind was thinking when his mathematical mind was engaged in seeing this "rubber band" had some other comparative abstraction, as something of consequence in our world. Yet, people focus on what they like to focus on, other then what "lead the mind" to think the way they do?

Poincaré Conjecture
If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut......

I have to rest now.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Gravity and Electromagnetism?

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

Oskar Klein and Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza

What a novel idea to have the methods used by the predecessors like Maxwell, to have been united from Faraday's principals? To have Maxwell's equation Gaussian in interpretation of Riemann geometry, somehow, united by the geometries of Einstein and defined as gravity?

Then, to have Gravity and Light United?

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."

It seems then that the very statement of "Unification," the "Theory of everything," does not seem so far fetched as we look at the implications of what comes after. What comes from the knowledge, extended.

I was starting to loose hope here in the efforts of blogging as well, and was thinking that the time had come to a end. But "these questions" help to fuel the understanding that I had gained by giving time to "what work" has been put out there by scientists?

To think scientists would close up shop to their elite view, would seem disastrous to me, because of the leading perspective of what the physics means along side of that math.

We need to know what is "experimentally going" on so that we can also judge what theoretical models are doing for us as we extend this knowledge gained.

I gave a few views in environmental sciences in terms of the cosmic relation as well as what Gr was being introduced using time clocks and such, for views of the topographical understanding of earth from a fluidness point of view.

Now join the "cloud cover" along side of particle collisions sources, and have we learn anything that we didn't know before, or has this push new light onto what we now see of earth, as it's placed in the cosmological frontier?

Thursday, August 03, 2006

BigFoot: The Anomalistic Reality?

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

What can we say to those who practice science and have been told, no anomalistic conditions can exist in reality? How will they "act" when they have been shaken at the very roots, assuming, such a thing can happen to them as a "observer" of what is "real" to them?

What "if" their illusions have taken hold of them? What if, they jump into a river? Scientists are not like this? They see "everything?":)OuI! Non? They all looking for "truth" just like you, Lee Smolin. There are no causalities?

Nature in Analog Models

In condensed matter, one can construct systems where the propagation of long wavelength phonons (sound waves) is very similar to the propagation of a scalar field in a curved Lorentzian spacetime. Such systems are called 'analog models'. It is even possible to construct analogies to black holes in this manner, where the phonons that travel past a certain point cannot return. For example, consider a fluid where long wavelength phonons in the fluid propagate with speed cs, which is analogous to the speed of light in these models. Now put this fluid in a pipe and change the shape of the pipe such that the speed v of the fluid is faster than cs in one section and slower in an adjacent section. A phonon can travel "back against the current" only up to a certain point, where the the fluid speed equals cs. After that the fluid flow carries it down the pipe. This point in the pipe therefore mimics a black hole event horizon, from which nothing can escape. Other black hole features such as Hawking radiation are also present in these models. Since these models give an example of a system that has a fundamental structure at very short distances (where the fluid description breaks down), yet has a pseudo-Lorentz invariance at long distances.

So forget about paradigmal change, and Kuhn's perspective about revolutonary change? A precursor to how things have always been done, now change, to become? Such an example is needed to push perspective unless you want to stay the way you have always been?

Evidence of Dis-ease?

Have we gotten so far to assume "the sickness" had indeed been caused by such theoretics and a "ventured mysticism," that the fault lied in those who venture forth and offer perspective and some who lacked visional meaning?

So as a "painter" Dali added "dimension" to the tesserack of our talks?:)

The artists begun to believe in the "mystical reality of life" and in so having succumbed to the death of all that has been forsaken(education), it will be strings that will lie at the root cause of this troubling disease?

What "seeing" has overtaken all that we have currently surmized. Is it such an artist of people who help free us of our rigidity?

I am trying to be sensitive as well here.

Bigfoot Toe Analogy

Backreaction: Lee Smolin's Trouble with Physics

BEE said:
Last night I had a nightmare! Bigfoot knocked at my door and wanted to talk to me about the existence of the string theory landscape. Still on east-coast time, I wiped off the sweat from my forehead but couldn't fall asleep again. I switched on my laptop, and decided its time to post the review on Lee Smolin's new book.

I found this a very interesting perspective by "B" on the "Theory of Everything" and how this can manifest in the deeper part of the subconcious mind. Of course the mind tries to deal with the incredibility of the world? How shall we come to deal with it's anomalies, if "repeatability" will not sanction the observer?

The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants.

QGP tunnelling? So where are these times being presented? What is accounting for the conditions which allow for such tunnelling? A cosmological preview perhaps which allows for "new physics" to emerge?

Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

What things will shock the scientist? Change the "foundational basis" of thinking about the quantum reality?

The affect these things(?) can have on any mind is amazing, and of course, getting all the information is very important(observing what is wrong), so, we can assess what the heck is going on?

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

What is happening in the trouble minds of the scientists as we have come to learn of their struggles to deal with the anomalistic(animalistic)world? :)The Jaquar, the elephant(how shall we describe quantum gravity)?

Maybe it is a joke of "incredibility to some" knowing more then what we lay people know? Yet, with all that has been said here, where will you bury your experience? How shall it now manifest into your life? What will now "motivate" your science?

"Diamagnetic situation" and what creates these holes in what runs consistently, and we see where such instances "float" the disc. How strange, had you not have arisen from the tribal forest life? To view the situations of all "science life" to see and know more then what taken for granted as thplane flew over head on first take?

Einstein when given the compass saw something strange in his youth? We know better now what that was. All "lay people" are in their youth? All "lay people" can learn? As a "lay person" I will listen very hard to what you are saying.

Fantastic journies

A flight between "heaven and Earth?" Some cherish the Eagle for seeing.

"Warren Seagull" is a wonderful bird? :) Parodies, will break us free?

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Satellites Can Glide But Bee's Can't?

I just wanted to clarify my statements in regards to the association I made In Bumble Bee Rotations.

If you understood the "easiest route/shortest distance" in which to travel, how can a satellite be propelled along pathways, with the least resistance? You had to be able to see properly, and in a abstract sense?

If you understood "tubes" as possible routes, then how would such energies be revealled as such cosmic strings crossed the universe? In the early cosmological design one would understand Andrey's computerized model settings as the earlier face of supersymmetrical valuations. This had to arise from the planck epoch?

If you held such views in relation to the principals inherent in the lessons provided by Wayne Hu below, then you get some idea of what happens when the simplification takes hold of one's mind, and one sees the landscape not as some fictional entry to pet peeves and name calling.

I have assigned simplification by providing data to show how ideas of those xtra dimensions would have permitted the photons pathways easy traversables, while CSL patterns can be established?

You choose how and which side you want to focus on in looking at those langrange points? Easiest routes to langrange point considerations. While you consider this, think about the lensing that occurs.

The figure to the right
{above here} shows the equivalent of a Feynman diagram in a string theory. String theorists hope that since this reaction is no longer confined to a single point it may be possible to unify all four fundamental interactions.

Neural Correlate Speculation

Neural correlates in my speculations, but once the patterns had been established, it made sense to me that lumiousity would have highlighted the rasiets pathways of expression. As if enlightenment would have taken hold, fromthe first elements of the universe in expression would have been seen as these CSL cosmic strings? Just a thought in passing:)

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Anomalistic Features of Gold Fish and Ant World?

I was reading Mark Trodden's blog called, "Orange Quark" for reading, and he pointed out the following article. In Praise of Hard Questions, by Tom Siegfried

Geometric basis underlying science? I see this tendency of many to the Halls of records, museums, and whatever you like, to keep current for all us folks outside academia.

These are important historical correlations to draw from. These are wonderful connections to the fathers/mothers of science. Distinctive historical figures who embue science with their particular inflections and bend.

Should we dismiss the motivations of those who are driven by "anomalistic behaviors"? Remember Einstein in his youth and the compass? What are we ignorant of in such a case?

We know well, that such measures, if not supported, cannot be easily removed from the memories. Can be relinguished to subjective interpretations. Should not be ruled inadmissable:)Yet, it can drive the motvation of youth in that case t hard and fsat rules of order?

Had there ever been a time where a scientist had seen something that ran contrary to everything they know? It had to be at the front line, or how would anomalistic valuation had ver been entertained? Had been seen by a reputable scientist and held in the idealization of the Einstein who at his time, "lacked comprehension" but was moved.

Here I point out David Gross's statement and context supplied by Tom Siegfried .

Science's greatest advances occur on the frontiers, at the interface between ignorance and knowledge, where the most profound questions are posed. There's no better way to assess the current condition of science than listing the questions that science cannot answer. "Science," Gross declares, "is shaped by ignorance."

Yes I think we all understand.

So indeed we see then that all the forebears of our science then had something in common as they sought to geometrically express the abstract, and in my line of thinking, runs the Wunderkammer models. These are hard and concrete models in glass cases.

Maxwell understood this in Gauss and Faraday, and Einstein, understood this in Riemann? Sachherri elucidating beyond the limits of Euclids postulates 1-4, paved the way for a new dynamcial world? So how strange indeed that Sean Carroll would give us a sixty second explanation on extra dimensions. Have we eluded to an "aspect of mind" in abstraction?

Extra dimensions sound like science fiction, but they could be part of the real world. And if so, they might help explain mysteries like why the universe is expanding faster than expected, and why gravity is weaker than the other forces of nature.
Three dimensions are all we see -- how could there be any more? Einstein's general theory of relativity tells us that space can expand, contract, and bend. If one direction were to contract down to an extremely tiny size, much smaller than an atom, it would be hidden from our view. If we could see on small enough scales, that hidden dimension might become visible.

Sean, what shall you say to Peter Woit, who might say to you. "We are not Ants?"

So this sixty second explanation now presents itself, for the "mantra induced introspection" that one wonders, what the heck might Sean be talking about? Is there a world somewhere that that exists much like "ant world" in which we take part in?

How strange indeed then that the mind has been taken to Ant World, so that we may see, the angles of perception greatly ehanced for us? Where in the real world, walking straight lines is a "balancing act" when we engage the dynamcial qualites of science, that although engineered, also speak to the dynamcial relation underlying our everyday world.

So how shall such analogies then prepare us for the hard questions of science? Can we see now where such abstractions has moved science and the road shall lead us through to the idea of KLein's Ordering of Geometeries? Have we entered a new dynamcial realm of ant world, and together with Michio Kaku, created the new animated "goldfish world" as well, who see very much different then we see from the bridge?

Who is it that now sees and send our minds into "ants and goldfish?"

Monday, June 13, 2005

Michael Faraday

Michael Faraday (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was a British scientist (a physicist and chemist) who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.

While it is always nice to see history in it's developemental stages, it is also nice to see this segment of the developemental process encoded in GR developement. Some take offence to this as well, but the beginning geometric design had to have it's basis in how such logic could extend through this process. This is a important feature of how develoepment could have been mapped.

Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions

Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?

—Chap. VII.

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies. 1 Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the “truth” of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the “truth” of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with ruler and compasses.

You have to forgive my awkwardness and juvenile attempts at understanding, how I ever entered the non-eucldean world and became familiar with expressionistic attempts of defining that particular world is beynd me. It's all through my writing here, is this blog as I continue to find the wording for what a "banana tastes like," yet having words at the tip of the tongue would have asked that all mathematcial interpretation be expressed in the universal language of math.

While we deal with the physics aspect of reality we can as well see the "world of vision" that is needed in context of this "geometrical design" to know that what is unseen, can also be mapped in this process. Simple experimental processes are good indicators of this vision that is needed and applied in our daily lives.

While such a simple experiment would have found that views in physics considerations would have limited some of the brane world happenings to such expression, this points to what is held to the brane. It would have been a good comprehension that such views are not like what could have left the brane and entered the bulk, but having udertsood well, that such calorimetic designs have been encapsulated. What was left as signatures, Sean Carroll demonstrated to us, in the Cern Public Relations and trigger responsiveness, that many are trying to comprehend.

I understood this well already. That any design through out this understanding of physics, would have realized, that the comprehension of GR would have lead us through to the understanding of what had left that brane, and Gia's example of the metal plate suits me well sometimes in this regard. But also, to understand that the resonance of being, would have understood also, that such gravitonic expressions moved beyond what had been held to in our standard model of expressions?

So coming back to the physics applications I wanted to undertsand this relation, so being part of this overall process, how would geometries express themselves? A parallel process was being developed in my mind in the way process was being developed in strings? So such a method brought to bear with GR views needed to understand that the inception of developing topological views, would have found it's history, in how we see this geometrcial process developed right from the euclid's postulate to topological views now held. How could this be accomplished? Had there ever been such a thought to map this process right from the instigation of euclidean postulates, to now?

It was thus I found such consistancies, in that such hierarchy of our geometers of our past, would lead us to understand our relation with a world that although is unseen has been very important in physics relations, to what is happening consistant with the way the we measure with the world of GR.

We indeed had to understand that GR was lead to a understanding in Riemann's world to know that such cosmological curvatures would have exemplified our greater undertanding of this inherent feature of geometry beyond the eucldeean world of straight lines and billiard ball tragetories.

Thus we know then, that Gaussian curvatures could have been exemplified in Maxwell's attempt at joining the views of Faraday, in a process, that is part and parcel of the work Einstein did.

So such views beyond the idealization of what could have existed in the gravitonic perception, needed to understand well, that such features would have been exemplified beyond the standard model as a carrier. That it could exist beyond the curtailments of brane world happenings, and be part of a bulk.

So what vision would apply then to such a world, if such consistancy were to apply itself as part and parcel of the view of euclidean demonstration? That such a geometrical process could have been seen right from the brane to it's fruitation as a model of greater possibilties? Steinhardt and Turok were very helpful here in a greater view. But stil this did not exemplify the understanding that such "a point" could be significant in the developing view of a cosmological expansionistic sense, and reval that such spheres as they develope also reveal the history of a liminocentric view of reality seen in our Calorimetric view of the trigger?

How ever difficult it is to accept this developing view, it is not without merit that such a process that is hidden in our human makeup, would also direct our view to what is most desirous in this wholeness that needs to be establised in our sciences.

Although it is urecognized by a lot of people, the layered plates and the deeper integrative views we have of our reductionistic processes, are viable means to interpretation and coming to terms with the greater comprehension of a world that is very dynamcial at that level. Can exist around us now.

That how simplistic to me, that such examples of the collider ad the arrow of direction loop de loop might have revealled a greater boson construct of a circle to sphere, as child's play. But if such a process were to begin, how would we ever see this line, develope into a circle, and the greater context of Gr seen in how the trigger is realized?

Gluonic perception is ever pointed towards the reductionistc view, but where shall such a limit exist, if the energy had moved beyond the confines of the collisions?

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Mapping Quark Confinement and The Energy

As I moved through the thinking of those extra dimensions it became apparent to me that the conceptualization of that distance scale was a strange world indeed. How, if we had accept the move to non-euclidean views could we not of accepted the consequences of this move?

Dazzled with the amazing properties of this new mathematical realm, everything seemed a bit magical, as if, experiencing for the first time a taste that is strange indeed? How would I recognize this strange dynamical world, if I had not understood this move to include the geometry that Kaluza and Klien adopted, to gather together another reality of photon engagement with that of gravity?

Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.

So at the same time you had this distant measure, how could we resolve what was happening between those two points?

Without some supersymmetrical reality(supergravity) how could any point emerge from the brane if it did not recognize the evolution of those dimensions?

So how does this point expand? This is a simple enough question?

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

In the above picture Michael Duff draws our attention too, I was drawn to the same principals that Klein demonstrated in his ideas of projective geometry, as the dimensions are revealed?

IN this effort and recognition of appropriate geometry, I had wondered, that if the same consistancy with which these two had demonstrated the principals, euclidean
postulates fell in line, as a basis of this method of applicabilty? Does one now see this thread that runs through the geometry?

Having accepted the road travelled to GR we have come to recognize the royal road has lead us to a strange world indeed. First it was Reimann with Gauss looking over his shoulder, and Maxwell joining Faraday in this celebration, with Einstein bringing all the happy go lucky, into a fine example of what has been implied by the harmonious nature, structure of strings in concert?

But I am not happy yet. If one could not see what was happening between those two points, what's the use of talking any math, without the co-existance of the physics?

The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies. (This occurs because electromagnetism is a U(1) symmetry theory and U(1) is simply the group of rotations around a circle).