Showing posts with label Higgs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Higgs. Show all posts

Friday, September 09, 2005

Mission Impossible?

Tom Cruise tackles the new world of Mission's Impossible III. What kind of recording system will he use? You got it, the illustrous Ipod? :)

Plato said:
Hey I got one for you. You remember mission impossible. Well in this case, your only able to use the ipod once, then it turns into a super liquid.

It wouldn't be right to give a older paper for inspection of Gerard's and not to include current present day assessment on the issues here. Ipodmanship has run it's course, so we'll have to wait for Clifford to update:)

But in the mean time, Bps blackhole sets up the idea of supersymmetrical valuation?

Plato said:
It’s called a “BPS Ipod”. This would surely be a “hotty and a smoothy”?

Gerard t' Hooft:
In particular the gravitational interactions are responsible for the unitarity of the scattering against the horizon, as dictated by the holographic principle, but the Standard Model interactions also contribute, and understanding their effects is an important first step towards a complete understanding of the horizon’s dynamics. The relation between in- and outgoing states is described in terms of an operator algebra. In this paper, the first of a series, we describe the algebra induced on the horizon by U(1) vector fields and scalar fields, including the case of an Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, and a more careful consideration of the transverse vector field components.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005


Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul.

Persinger's research forays are at the very frontier of the roiling field of neuroscience, the biochemical approach to the study of the brain. Much of what we hear about the discipline is anatomical stuff, involving the mapping of the brain's many folds and networks, aperformed by reading PET scans, observing blood flows, or deducing connections from stroke and accident victims who've suffered serious brain damage. But cognitive neuroscience is also a grab bag of more theoretical pursuits that can range from general consciousness studies to finding the neural basis for all kinds of sensations.

IN a materialistic sense I wanted to show how matter constructed phases and brain thinking, could be exemplified. Just as mathematics can, and this requirement of models of math, somehow need it's inception to arise from that same brain?

Rafael Núñez and George Lakoff have been able to give an elaborate first answer to the questions: How can advanced mathematics arise from the physical brain and body? Given the very limited mathematical capacity of human brains at birth, how can advanced mathematical ideas be built up using the basic mechanisms of conceptual structure: image-schemas, frames, metaphors, and conceptual blends?

Now I have done some home work here to say, that the thinking is leading from a brain orientated perspective, although this evidence is overwhelming, I have countered it with another thought.

Stanislas Dehaene
Like Lakoff, I am convinced that cognitive studies of mathematics will ultimately provide beautiful examples of the limits that our brains impose on our thoughts. As I tried to show in The Number Sense, we have very strong intuitions about small numbers and magnitudes, which are provided to us by a specific cerebral network with a long evolutionary history. But one could probably write another book describing the limits on our mathematical intuitions. Take topology, for instance. At home, I have a small collection of extremely simple topological brainteasers. Some of them (essentially made from a metal ring and a piece of string) are strikingly counter-intuitive ‹ our first reaction is that it is simply impossible to remove the ring, but of course it can be done in a few moves. Thus, our sense of topology is extremely poor. Yet it's easy enough to imagine a different species that would have evolved a cerebral area for "topo-sense", and for which all of my brain-teasers would be trivial

This intuitive feeling that is generated once math processes are understood are realized in dynamical movement revealled in the brains thinkng? Had to arrive from lessons it learnt previously? Pendulums, time clocks, great arcs, and gravity?

"What's Your Law?"

  • Damasio's First Law The body precedes the mind.

  • Damasio's Second Law Emotions precede feelings.

  • Damasio's Third Law Concepts precede words.

  • What if the condensation of the human brain was the reverse, of Damasio's First Law. I mean we can train the neuron pathways to be reconstructed, by establishing the movements previously damaged by stroke?

    What is the evolution of the human brain, if mind is not leading its shape?

    In Pioneering Study, Monkey Think, Robot DoBy SANDRA BLAKESLEE

    Monkeys that can move a robot arm with thoughts alone have brought the merger of mind and machine one step closer.

    In experiments at Duke University, implants in the monkeys' brains picked up brain signals and sent them to a robotic arm, which carried out reaching and grasping movements on a computer screen driven only by the monkeys' thoughts.

    The achievement is a significant advance in the continuing effort to devise thought-controlled machines that could be a great benefit for people who are paralyzed, or have lost control over their physical movements.

    In previous experiments, some in the same laboratory at Duke, both humans and monkeys have had their brains wired so they could move cursors on computer screens just by thinking about it. And wired monkeys have moved robot arms by making a motion with their own arms. The new research, however, involves thought-controlled robotic action that does not depend on physical movement by the monkey and that involves the complex muscular activities of reaching and grasping.

    Now the direct connection, is self evdient once the brains mapping is understood and connections made. In computerization the mathematical structure is very importan,t so such a math mind and the computer persons would excell if the equaitions would demonstrate the math as a model constructed. In this sense, if we think of the Torso, rotation turns 360 degrees, or 720, would somehow bring it back to it's original position.

    Monkey Moves Computer Cursor by Thoughts Alone, By E.J. Mundell

    Going one step further, her team then trained the monkey to simply think about a movement, without reaching out and touching the screen. A computer program, hooked up to the implanted electrodes, interpreted the monkey's thoughts by tracking flare-ups of brain cell activity. The computer then moved a cursor on the computer screen in accordance with the monkey's desires--left or right, up or down, wherever ``the electrical (brain) pattern tells us the monkey is planning to reach,'' according to Meeker.

    So I must put here some information to show the counter proposal.

    Lets say my own brain did concieve a process within it's own structure that I had been able to identify as a process of continuity and called it a inductive deductive process, according to that shape? Would this reveal something about my own brain, but of others as well? Hw el have tunnels served to help the mind engage a physiolgical process, to find it self decribing the math, in experience?

    The counter proposal I am making, is disguised in Persingers own words. That such a field manifested in the brain dynamics, as neuronic developmental pathways? Could this have been initiated from thinking structured born in mind and as a model assumption, somehow transformed the process of the whole brain?

    A Paradigm Change? Penetrating the unpenetrable?

    This plate image is a powerful one for me becuase it represents something Greene understood well. His link on the right hand side of this blog is the admission of "cosmological and quantum mechanical readiness," to tackle the cosmological frontier.

    How do you classify some experience where mind might have projected ahead of itself, while the neurons would become the basis of thinking. Something had to exist before a personality could develope. Personality is our man made, while deeper is the essence of that flows through to expression? How would you have concieved of this in a physiological processes? Einstein crossing the room, and in this, "higgs will have found it's comparison?" "Neurons," that fall in behind the projected mind?

    Brian Greene:
    it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ...

    So you look for the topological equivalent.The sphere and the torus? So there is this struggle of sorts. Where energy can flow through, in and out, and how had it changed, and this field becomes the image of gaussian curvature easily expressed in Maxwells delivery as part of some greater whole?

    But it is more then the relationship of that same cosmological partnership to reductionistc attempts at defining the beginning of the universe, will somehow have found it's relevance through the expression of the mind? The universe 's beginning?

    Melencolia II
    [frontispiece of thesis, after Dürer 1514]

    Historically this development of the geometry of consciousness was working hard to bring itself to light? The manifested realization, of those early universe indications.

    Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    The Calorimetric View?

    The Title, might seem somewhat strange, but a issue has developed for me that I see raised in the scourge of other intellectuals, who disavow the extra dimension scenario.

    So you have this view and you have this idea of missing energy? Where did it go and where did it come from? Pierre Auger linked previously and the Oh my god particle, raise this idea more in line with the vaster layout of this possibilty.

    You see these things are happening around us now, and you needed a much comprehensive view of this compacted dynamcial world? So the methods seen for determination help us to see what is happening in relation not only to particle reductionistic views, but of the relationship happening with Earth and the Sun. Our other Cosmic relations, that move here in the vast network of spacetime contortions that signal informative views from earlier times

    ATLAS and the LHC
    Describing the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions in terms of gauge theories, the Standard Model (SM) of fundamental particles and their interactions has successfully explained and predicted many aspects of high-energy particle interactions. However, despite its tremendous successes, it remains theoretically unsatisfactory. The SM cannot answer what is the origin of particle masses, contains a large number of arbitrary parameters, and does not explain why there are so many types of quarks and leptons, among other questions. Perhaps as much as theoretical breakthroughs are needed in order to improve the SM, so are experimental observations on phenomena which can further constrain the SM or may reveal physics beyond it.

    The question I raised was in looking at where the missing energy had gone? This is a important question, becuase it speaks to what energy gone in/out, as not being equal? I take it, that all particle reductionistic interpretations would have surmized it's energy value, and then, had something left over that is accoutable? How would you know it's missing?

    Now I was looking a Cabi's ole post and from it, this lead me to look at the title of the connected paper for consideration.

    A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS

    Part of the counterpart of looking at particle creation would have been able to understand the part of the calorimeters that are used to measure the evidence produced. IN this context, it lead me to the Atlas information held at CERN. It also made me think of Glast determinations of early universe indications from the calorimeter located in the Glast satelitte. See the Looking Glast

    A Higgs Mechanism for Gravity, by Ingo Kirsch

    In this paper we elaborate on the idea of an emergent spacetime which arises due to the dynamical breaking of diffeomorphism invariance in the early universe. In preparation for an explicit symmetry breaking scenario, we consider nonlinear realizations of the group of analytical diffeomorphisms which provide a unified description of spacetime structures. We find that gravitational fields, such as the affine connection, metric and coordinates, can all be interpreted as Goldstone fields of the diffeomorphism group. We then construct a Higgs mechanism for gravity in which an affine spacetime evolves into a Riemannian one by the condensation of a metric. The symmetry breaking potential is identical to that of hybrid inflation but with the non-inflaton scalar extended to a symmetric second rank tensor. This tensor is required for the realization of the metric as a Higgs field. We finally comment on the role of Goldstone coordinates as a dynamical fluid of reference.

    Now I have not gone into in detail because I am somewhat slow and a bottom feeder trying very hard to gain perspective of the world these fellows like to deal with.

    So the water symbolically speaking, sound manifest, with those inhabiting a dynamical world, speak about the nature of matter constitutions. That come from some state of existance? Here the idea, that it could emerse from nothing (where do the graviton perceptions reside?), is again hard to swallow becuase, "preconstitutional states," had allowed such manifestations to emerge from something? It just seemed logical? Non!

    When you think this is going to be the end of it, I thought, I would recap, because I have given the containment(calorimetric) that such particle views, or early universe connections, might have brought forward in detectors methods?

    This would have satisfied Peter Woit I am sure, but this view is far from over. The rules have defined a greater context to the issue that points us to the deeper issue of what Gerard 't Hooft might have said was comprehensible features of computerized information consistancies. This would have been far from the truth. Blackhole particle production, would have said hold on? To have this comprehensive view, you needed to include a completed version of the standard model? Without the grvaiton in cvomputerized versions you see where the picture is far completed and you se where the extra dimensiona would have certain features that would have incorporated graviton perceptions in the bulk?

    The horizon would have been far from complete had the standard model not included this into the the energy in/out version. This would have been the thread(string) that connected the innner space of the blackhole with the particle production that would have dissipated/exploded in view? How would computerization meet this demand? LIGO?

    Tuesday, April 26, 2005

    The Holographical Mapping of the Standard Model onto the Blackhole Horizon

    New paper that came out yesterday written by Gerard 't Hooft

    Interactions between outgoing Hawking particles and ingoing matter are determined by gravitational forces and Standard Model interactions. In particular the gravitational interactions are responsible for the unitarity of the scattering against the horizon, as dictated by the holographic principle, but the Standard Model interactions also contribute, and understanding their effects is an important first step towards a complete understanding of the horizon’s dynamics. The relation between in- and outgoing states is described in terms of an operator algebra. In this paper, the first of a series, we describe the algebra induced on the horizon by U(1) vector fields and scalar fields, including the case of an Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, and a more careful consideration of the transverse vector field components.

    But before I entertain this idea, I wanted to gain some perspective. I was immediately struck by something here that changes the way we have been doing things? Recognizing the blackhole evaporation and standard model production, we are saying that indeed these things already existed in the horizon?

    Would M theory have then found it's experimental counterpart? The Bose Nova and Jet idea from collapsing bubbles has been part of the vision I speculated in what Heisenberg saw in the geometrodynamics of a nuclear explosion. See, not only were we detonating a nuclear reaction(gravitational collapse), but we were doing something beyond the perception, by going to the heart of these particle collisions.

    What makes it diffuclt for me is that having seen the blackhole dynamics in relation to bubble technlogies, that I like to use as analogies, relate too, and contain the elements of the standard model without ever entering the blackhole? How is this possible and still see the three blane collapse of the blackhole here?

    Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity by Gerard 't Hooft

    The requirement that physical phenomena associated with gravitational collapse should be duly reconciled with the postulates of quantum mechanics implies that at a Planckian scale our world is not 3+1 dimensional. Rather, the observable degrees of freedom can best be described as if they were Boolean variables defined on a two-dimensional lattice, evolving with time. This observation, deduced from not much more than unitarity, entropy and counting arguments, implies severe restrictions on possible models of quantum gravity. Using cellular automata as an example it is argued that this dimensional reduction implies more constraints than the freedom we have in constructing models. This is the main reason why so-far no completely consistent mathematical models of quantum black holes have been found.

    Essay dedicated to Abdus Salam.

    Gerard "t Hooft:No 'Quantum Computer' will ever be able to out perform a 'scaled up classical computer.'

    Holding onto the sanity of why such computerization program will run into difficulties, has not undermined the position to included and create opportunities for seeing what is happening at such reductionistic levels? To have wondered, will we gain a dynamcial visulaization of what is happening within the context of the universe as it came into being?

    With more computer power, scientists can also include more elements of the Earth's climate system, such as the oceans, the atmosphere, their chemistry and the carbon cycle.

    This should make forecasts of future temperature rises more reliable. Keiko Takahashi, who works at the Earth Simulator Centre, says they have already carried out several experiments that look 50 years ahead.

    There is difficulties with doing this, and like LIGO or a SEti work in progress, how shall this information allows us to see the interactions in a consistent model? So dealing with these difficulties has been part of Gerard 't Hoofts analysis to see that others too, work hard to deal with issues of information paradox?

    Part of this difficulty in computerized model application, would have been transfer rates of information from such quantum levels. Lubos gives some insight here. Although it has been very nice that such visualization techiques could be applied to this data transfer, from what we understand of particle reductionsism. Within context of the larger universe, how detailed shall has our observations become of the world around us?

    These images contrast the degree of interaction and collective motion, or "flow," among quarks in the predicted gaseous quark-gluon plasma state (Figure A, see mpeg animation) vs. the liquid state that has been observed in gold-gold collisions at RHIC (Figure B, see mpeg animation). The green "force lines" and collective motion (visible on the animated version only) show the much higher degree of interaction and flow among the quarks in what is now being described as a nearly "perfect" liquid. (Courtesy of Brookhaven National Laboratory)

    The goal of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is to link roughly 6,000 scientists so they can perform large-scale experiments and simulations to help the world better understand subatomic particles. The grid will ultimately link more than 200 research institutions.

    "This service challenge is a key step on the way to managing the torrents of data anticipated from the LHC," Jamie Shiers, manager of the service challenges at CERN, said in a statement. "When the LHC starts operating in 2007, it will be the most data-intensive physics instrument on the planet, producing more than 1,500 megabytes of data every second for over a decade."

    Gerard 't Hooft recognized this problem and when we see such scattering ideas from blackhole standard model production particles, how shall we see this event in terms of what is sent back for examination? It would mean considering the context of Gerard's paper there is no information loss? No missing energy events?

    Thus the consistent model frame, from blackhole production underlying framework would disavow any ideas relating to energy in and energy out imbalance held in context of gravitonic production as part of the standard model production? The horizon area would become a balanced view?

    Using the ideas of Clementine and the graduation to Grace, it seemed that I was leading to a good comprehensive view of the bubble technicalities as they contained the missing energy, but moving too "this view of Gerard's" might endanger how we approximate the whole view of this missing energy, with the easy removal of that missing energy scenario? Would this be consistent with the overall encompassed view that the grvaiton has emerged from the extension of this standard model to say oh, it's okay we can remove this and fnd comfort with the existing framework without other contentions issues like missing energy to deal with this?

    Do we have Proof of this Missing Energy? If the answer is yes, then the issue has not been resolved?

    Thursday, April 14, 2005

    G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1).

    Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

    "Nothing to me would be more poetic; no outcome would be more graceful ... than for us to confirm our theories of the ultramicroscopic makeup of spacetime and matter by turning our giant telescopes skyward and gazing at the stars,"
    Greene said.

    Peter Woit:
    Brian Greene was in the audience and somewhat objected to this. Brian's point of view appears to be the more traditional one that people should just try and cook up vacua with as many features as possible close to the Standard Model, and that once they've got such a thing it will have other implications for physics that can be checked. It seems to me that that kind of work has been going on for more than twenty years with no sign of success, but Brian still believes this will ultimately work out.

    To me the idea of bubble dynamics is quite revealling when you place the context and question of the dynamics as underlying feelings(this is quite subjective). Much like GR, and these momentus occasions, that can move within our natures, as our comprehension grows. Time experienced in different ways, does this for us?:)It can still be a highly visula thing?:)

    To not be mistaken, the questions materializes in the reasons why such dynamics may have been offerred in the same vain as GR, to see that this features becomes a signature of conscious effort, where what is being replaced, reveals some dynamics of the true vacuum?:)

    So of course there are questions that need to be resolved. Some might not like to answer them and censor the blog of their own, so that blanket policies regardless of the question, is like who gives a **** about what you think in context of the larger picture of things. Of course they have their own agenda and have the right. It's their blog. I am quite greatful by such resistance presented, has forced me to expand here, where the truth of what I am seeing can be demonstrated.

    But I have digressed some from the important question that is raised not only in Serkan's mind but mine as well. So resource info helps in perspective here.

    Is QFT vacuum real?

    Serkan Cabi:Almost everybody cite the Casimir effect as the proof of reality of quantum ground state of standard model fields. Lately it has become a commonsense especially in the dark energy literature, as an aspect deepening the problem.

    So to me looking for an explanation of ths dynamics is a hard one to qualify as it suggested by some, that one wonders about the way early supersymmetrical idealizations have brought consideration to what emerges from these hottimes?

    But there are other ways here, that having gotten a grasp of this elasticity of a membrane, that one can see how certain features are held too and others, are presented for further developement in the nature of those same psyches? Imagine introducing this memebrance and the elasticity. What has the mind grasped now?

    Below Serkan helps to point out more info for consideration.

    The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum
    I have presented an argument that the experimental confirmation of the Casimir effect does not establish the reality of zero point fluctuations. Casimir forces can be calculated without reference to the vacuum and, like any other dynamical effect in QED, vanish as a→0. The vacuum-to-vacuum graphs (See Fig. 1) that define the zero point energy do not enter the calculation of the Casimir force, which instead only involves graphs with external lines. So the concept of zero point fluctuations is a heuristic and calculational aid in the description of the Casimir effect, but not a necessity.

    This does not do away with the idea of what can happen within the confines of a vacuum, but ultimately, we realize that the speed of light remains the same, yet other dynamics when playing with physical things, can display wonderful intentions about about this elasticity nature?

    Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

    So it is a highly specialize vision that I had been moving towards that I wanted to make sure any bubble technolgies would encase all that we learnt. That we define the further reaches of what this bubble( K=0 before the crunch begins) might have encompassed? Revealled that outer value(K=0) of Friedman's equation and Omega in terms of what critical density would have expounded? In terms of the distance this bubble could grow, in this inflationary universe?

    Outside this bubble universe, is a dimensionally filled universe that had grown as this bubble grew?

    Such movement in propelling our universe to expression, seems quite a challenge, so having encompassed this larger view of reality, inverse square law would have exemplified the schwarzchild radius, determining the total expansive view of this cosmos?

    You had to be able to confine this view and encapsulate it so that the total view developed through the phases of standard model production would have evetually helped us realize the wide scope this particle reductionism and cosmological endeavors had revealled with distances(large and small) joining?:)

    Friday, April 08, 2005

    Pierre Auger Observatory

    In his excellent paper, Louis LePrince-Ringuet, citing a remark of Powell's at the Conference of Bagneres-de-Bigorre in 1953, declared that from that date on, particle accelerators took the place of cosmic rays, which more or less faded into the background. And yet, even today accelerators have not caught up with cosmic rays.

    Pierre Auger on Cosmic Rays

    "For in 1938, I showed the presence in primary cosmic rays of particles of a million Gigavolts -- a million times more energetic than accelerators of that day could produce. Even now, when accelerators have far surpassed the Gigavolt mark, they still have not attained the energy of 1020eV, the highest observed energy for cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays have not been dethroned as far as energy goes, and the study of cosmic rays has a bright future, if only to learn where these particles come from and how they are accelerated. You know that Fermi made a very interesting proposal that particles are progressively accelerated by bouncing off moving magnetic fields, gaining a little energy each time. In this way, given a certain number of "kicks," one could perhaps account for particles of 1018 -- 1020 electron volts. As yet, however, we have no good theory to explain the production of the very-high-energy particles that make the air showers that my students and I discovered in 1938 at Jean Perrin's laboratory on a ridge of the Jungfrau."
    -- Pierre Auger, Journal de Physique, 43, 12, 1982

    On the vast plain known as Pampa Amarilla in western Argentina, a new window on the universe is taking shape. There the Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory has begun its study of the universe's highest energy particles. These rare messengers should tell an important story about how they originate. Experiments have so far failed to decipher their message, and their existence has become a profound puzzle. The Auger Observatory is attacking this enigma of the highest energy cosmic rays with unprecedented collecting power and experimental controls.

    John Ellis:
    The next step will again be taken in Japan, with the new J-PARC accelerator starting in 2009 to send neutrinos almost 300 km, again to the Super-Kamiokande experiment, to probe the third neutrino mixing angle that has not yet been detected in either atmospheric or solar neutrino experiments. This may also be probed in a new experiment being proposed for the Fermilab NuMI beam. One of the ideas proposed at CERN is to probe this angle with an underwater experiment moored in the Gulf of Taranto off the coast of Italy, viewing neutrinos in a modified version of CERN's current Gran Sasso beam.

    Aussois, Savoie, France
    After "Neutrino 2004" the convergence of results from atmospheric, solar, reactor and accelerator experiments confirms the massive neutrino and gives the first opportunity to test physics beyond the Standard Model. The neutrino oscillations picture is still missing 3 fundamental ingredients: the mixing angle θ13, the mass pattern and the CP phase δ.

    Future neutrino beams of conventional and novel design aimed at a megaton type detector could give access to these parameters. Such a detector would also be the next generation facility for proton decay searches and an invaluable supernovae neutrino observatory.

    To understand the Higgs mechanism, imagine that a room full of physicists chattering quietly is like space filled with the Higgs field ...

    So who is the professor that crosses the room? It is Albert Einstein:)

    Any such Blackhole would quickly decay into a shower of Hawking radiation (mainly into standard model particles on our brane, rather than into grvaitons into the bulk). This shower of radiation would be quite different from showers arising from, say, the collsion of cosmic-ray proton with a atmospheric atomic nucleus. Gravity is "flavor blind," so when a microscopic blackhole evaporates it produces all the Standard Model particles with equal probability. Once one accounts for spin and color, it turns out that particles produced when a blackhole decays are about 72 percent quarks and Gluons, 18 percent leptons, and the rest are bosons. Such a distinctive shower of particles would be hard to miss. So there is the possibility that the Pierre Auger Observatory will detect blackholes.
    Page 262, Out of this World, by Stephen Webb

    Two of the tanks in the Pierre Auger Observatory are shown. They each hold 12 tonnes of clean water and are viewed by 3 X 8” diameter photomultipliers. The electronics for recording and data transmission are powered by solar cells. These tanks are placed close together so that cross-tank measurements of densities and arrival times can be made but the nearest neighbour for all other tanks is 1.5 km away. In this way 3000 km2 can be covered with only 1600 detectors.

    Friday, March 11, 2005


    There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.
    — Nikolai Lobachevsky

    John Ellis:
    Extensions of the Standard Model often contain more discriminatory parameters, and this is certainly true of supersymmetry, my personal favourite candidate for new physics beyond the Standard Model. One of the possibilities suggested by supersymmetry is that Higgs bosons might distinguish couple differently to matter

    Without consideration of that early universe, the quantum interpretation doesn't make sense unless you include it in something whole?

    Lubos said,
    There are also many other, indirect ways how can we "go" back in time. This is what evolution, cosmology, and other fields of science are all about.

    Unsymmetrical-cooling-gravity weaker
    \ /
    \ /
    \ /
    _\ /___
    / \ / /
    / \ / /
    / \/ / --------300,000 years
    / / Gravity strong
    ------------- Symmetrical

    Q-------------Quark measure is stronger

    \ /
    \ /
    \ /
    \ /

    Symbolically how do you create a inclusive system, but to look at alien and foreign ways in which this logic might force you to consider the interactivity of a theory of everything? Greater quark distance, greater energy, higher gravitational field generation. The field around this distance, and supersymmetrical realization bring us closer to the source of the energy creation, closer to the source of the universe's beginnings consider such eneregies within the sphere of M, at a quantum level, as well at such cosmological scales."

    The Bubble Universe / Andre Linde's Self Creating Universe

    These are the theories discussed in class. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.

    The "self-creating" in Andre Linde's self-creating universe theory stems from the concept that each bubble or inflationary universe will sprout other bubble universes, which in turn, sprout more bubble universes. The universe we live in has a set of physical constants that seem tailor-made for the evolution of living things.

    It is very difficult sometimes to bring another individuals view in line with the vast resources that could point the mind to consider the whole thing?

    If you did not have a encompassing philosophy, and I know this word is dirty to some, but without pointing to a basis for which the universe sprang, then such topological features would never make sense.

    So you direct the thinking to what the early universe looked like(?), and it's potential for expression. A lot of things are going on that are not considered geometrically/topologically unfolding, which hide within the basis of expression. So you have to use analogies to nudge the mind into possible structural considerations, with evidence of graviton production?

    Notes on Hyperspace Saul-Paul Sirag
    The rule is that for n hidden dimensions the gravitational force falls off with the inverse (n + 2 ) power of the distance R. This implies that as we look at smaller and smaller distances (by banging protons together in particle accelerators) the force of gravity should look stronger and stronger. How much stronger depends on the number of hidden dimensions (and how big they are). There may be enough hidden dimensions to unify the all the forces (including gravity) at an energy level of around 1 TeV (1012 eV), corresponding to around 10-19 meters. This would be a solution to the hierarchy problem of the vast difference in energy scale between the three standard gauge forces and gravity. This is already partly solved by supersymmetry (as mentioned previously); but this new idea would be a more definitive solution--if it were the right solution!

    Sunday, February 20, 2005

    The Phenix

    PHENIX, the Pioneering High Energy Nuclear Interaction eXperiment, is an exploratory experiment for the investigation of high energy collisions of heavy ions and protons. PHENIX is designed specifically to measure direct probes of the collisions such as electrons, muons, and photons. The primary goal of PHENIX is to discover and study a new state of matter called the Quark-Gluon Plasma.

    The Bird's eye view is really interesting once you consider the frame with which early detection system would speak to early universe formation. To me, this is a direct perspective of the spectrum's hidden aspect, from the origins of this universe to what we have around us now. From such a reductionistic valuation, how else would we be taken to such lengths of realization?

    Can we see photons (particles of light) radiating directly from a Quark-Gluon Plasma? PHENIX has a preliminary measurement that confirms the presence of these direct photons. Data taken in 2004 should improve this measurement

    Fig. 2. Image showing how an 8 TeV black hole might look in the ATLAS detector (with the caveat that there are still uncertainties in the theoretical calculations).

    Quark-Gluon Plasma and such early universe detection systems would make it very difficult to move the mind to consider the deepr implications of Compton scattering versus graviton scattering with the idea that such early indications from the source, would have revealled stoing gravitational tendencies from recognition of the supesymmetrical valuation of that early universe?

    Nevertheless, astroparticle and collider experiments should provide useful input to the theoretical work in this area. Indeed, the signatures are expected to be spectacular, with very high multiplicity events and a large fraction of the beam energy converted into transverse energy, mostly in the form of quarks/gluons (jets) and leptons, with a production rate at the LHC rising as high as 1 Hz. An example of what a typical black-hole event would look like in the ATLAS detector is shown in figure 2.
    If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007.

    Maybe John Ellis can orientate our thinking here a bit in this regard.

    John Ellis:
    CLIC is based on a novel technology in which an intense low-energy electron beam is used to generate an electromagnetic wave that is used to push a lower-intensity beam to much higher energies in a relatively small distance. It seems to be the only realistic chance of colliding electrons and positrons at multi-TeV energies so, if it works, it will allay (at least for a while) some of David Gross's concerns about the prospects for future big physics projects

    Hirotaka Sugawara, former director of Japan’s KEK laboratory, also an ITRP member, described the science opportunities that a linear collider could provide.

    "High energy physics has a long history of using proton and electron machines in a complementary way," Sugarawa said. "With concurrent operation, here is a remarkable opportunity to maximize the science from both a linear collider and the Large Hadron Collider. Exciting physics at the linear collider would start with the detailed study of the Higgs particle. But this would be just the beginning. We anticipate that some of the tantalizing superparticles will be within the range of discovery, opening the door to an understanding of one of the great mysteries of the universe—dark matter. We may also be able to probe extra space-time dimensions, which have so far eluded us."

    Wednesday, February 16, 2005


    There are reasons for this theme, that I thought most appropriate to the discussion of illusion and miracles.

    In the thread previous to this one, a concept is put forward by Arkani-Hamed that focuses on the issue of the timeline from my perspective, relates to what Peter Woit speaks about here. I will try and explain, but I needed to comprehend better Peter's position.

    Peter Woit:
    Another way of saying it is that in the standard model you have an SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) principal bundle, and the geometry of the fibers is tightly constrained by the gauge symmetry, which is why the theory works so beautifully.

    But before addressing this a couple of things came to mind today that pointed to the need for this timeline to be addressed in a most appropriate manner that would tax the minds position it had assumed to free it to other possible realms for consideration.

    So I place here two idealizations that I thought of first and by doing this help hopefully to orientate peoples minds around the string issue and it's place in the spectrum of possibilties.

    The Planck Epoch

    In order to further expand this conceptual frame work, I am reminded of the Glast determinations and spectrum analysis we have engaged, which has allowed a deeper look at the timeline of events. The place from that earlier time.

    It was not to difficult to realize that work and place was being supplanted by a theoretical approached, so new ideas could emerge from current established views. Assumptions of theoretcial models would pushed the mind into other venues of considertaion and force upon it, the realities of acceptance.

    The Pre-Big Bang Scenario in String CosmologyM. Gasperini1 and G. Veneziano

    During the past thirty years, mainly thanks to accelerator experiments of higher and higher energy and precision, the standard model of particle physics has established itself as the uncontested winner in the race for a consistent description of electroweak and strong interaction phenomena at distances above 10−15 cm or so. There are, nonetheless, good reasons (in particular the increasing evidence for non-vanishing neutrino masses [388, 568, 569]) to believe that the standard model is not the end of the story. The surprising validity of this model at energies below 100 GeV, as well as the (in)famous Higgs mass fine-tuning problem, suggest some supersymmetric extension of the standard model (for a review see [501]) as the most likely improved description of non-gravitational phenomena over a few more decades in the ladder of scales. It is however quite likely that other questions that are left unanswered by the standard model, such as the peculiarities of fermionic masses and mixings, the family pattern, C, P, CP, B violation, etc., will only find their answers at –or around– the much higher energies at which all gauge interactions appear to unify [21]. This energy scale appears to be embarrassingly close (on a logarithmic scale) to the so-called Planck mass, MP ∼ 1019 GeV, the scale at which gravity becomes strong and needs to be quantized.

    On the one hand then we see where this timeline of physics and it's approach has been and still remians consistent with established views, but we have overlayed this idealization of the spectrum with a new approach to place the established geometries toplogiies that are curently being put forward in the mathematical realms for further extension of these natural laws? So what math shall preceed these views, if we do not change the concepts we had currently established to have the mind consider other prorposals?

    Drawing by Glen Edwards, Utah State University, Logan, UT

    Here I will refer back to Kip Thorne and the plate for consideration about how we see this timeline further illucidated upon( I mean really)and now we place it here in context of a new approach?

    Wednesday, February 02, 2005

    Left or Right Brain Doesn't Matter, When your In The Dimenisons?

    Einstein in response tyo Minkowski's Space World: Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence

    If we recognize the valuation of what exists regardless of the things that would hold the photon for consideration, the realization is, that the inetrplay would have revealled the Halo in definition of that gravitational radiation?

    A natural or acquired predilection towards geometric or algebraic thinking and respective mental objects is often expressed in strong pronouncements, like Hermann Weyl’s exorcising “the devil of abstract algebra” who allegedly struggles with “the angel of geometry” for the soul of each mathematical theory. (One is reminded of an even more sweeping truth:

    This goes back to the origins of the math, as to whether it is manufactured or is natural? Some of these distinctions are self evident as we look at Pascal's triangle for a selection of what may arize out of what might be called quantum geometry. We had to understand it's origins and the distant functions that would have been revealled? We also understood where such a view would have become realizaed in the detrminations of the nergy that was produced and the curvatures that would be inherent in this scalable feature relegated to dimension.

    If the brain resonates, then it may become aware of the undercurrents that would subjectively be realized in the subconscious, to have understood that it too was capable of determining the outcome to a pressupposed course of action taken in life? Chaldni plates, but much subtler in the brain's organization?

    The subconcious was able to predict the outcome of the actions that have been set, by the actualization of consensus. Ramanujan moduli forms may have, from what I understood found such expressions and spoken to the predictabiltiy of outcome, in relations to what I have just said above.

    Einstein's usage:
    We can distinguish various kinds of theories
    in physics. Most of them are constructive.
    They attempt to build up a picture of the more
    complex phenomena out of the materials of a
    relatively simple formal scheme from which
    they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
    seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and
    diffusional processes to movements of molecules
    -- i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
    molecular motion. When we say that we have
    succeeded in understanding a group of natural
    processes we invariably mean that a constructive
    theory has been found which covers the
    processes in question.
    Along with this most important class of
    theories there exists a second, which I will
    call 'principle-theories'; These employ the
    analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
    which form their bases and starting-point are not
    hypothetically constructed but empirically
    discovered ones, general characteristics of
    natural processes, principles that give rise to
    mathematically formulated criteria which these
    separate processes or the theoretical
    representations of them have to satisfy. Thus
    the science of thermodynamics seeks by
    analytical means to deduce necessary conditions,
    which separate events have to satisfy, from the
    universally experienced fact that perpetual
    motion is impossible.
    The advantages of the constructive theory
    are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
    those of the principle theory are logical
    perfection and security of the foundations.
    The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
    class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
    first of all to become acquainted with the
    principles on which it is based. Before I go
    into these, however, I must observe that the
    theory of relativity resembles a building
    consisting of two separate stories, the special
    theory and the general theory. The special
    theory, on which the general theory rests,
    applies to all physical phenomena with the
    exception of gravitation; the general theory
    provides the law of gravitation and its relations
    to the other forces of nature.

    Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
    Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
    Press, p. 228-9.

    Part of the difficulty in understanding the analogies to scientific pursuite is the relationship what might be drawn to the "idea"? Like sound, consolidation in nodal points lines of the Chaldni plate. Such predictive features of the marble drop of course ask us to question what outcome waould be a viable model to what might be demonstrated in the Bell curve?

    Quantum gravity models in the membranes show nodal point flips as in the monte carlo model for comprehesnion. Demonstrates the triangular function of this energy, and becomes quite pronouced, the greater the energy?

    We do not know for sure how particles get their mass. The current best idea is that they acquire it by interacting with a field (like a gravitational field), known as the Higgs field. The more strongly a particle interacts with this field, the greater its
    mass. The field is expected to produce a new particle called the Higgs particle.

    INherent in the quest for the appropriate visaulization of course depends greatly on where these abstractions exist? Without this ocean in which we are immersed, it would make no sense to speak about maths which do not arise into fractorialized states of existance. Not arisng from states of nothinness, but from states of possibile outcomes?

    Wednesday, November 24, 2004

    Bubble Nucleation

    Based on the no boundary proposal, I picture the origin of the universe, as like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny universes, out of nothing. Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but a few that reach a critical size, will expand in an inflationary manner, and will form galaxies and stars, and maybe beings like us.

    The images produce here of bubble formation are most pleasing to me, about what could have emerge from that early universe. If stringy components were evident and cosmic clumping rvealed as in previous post then how would such images lead to bubble nucleations as stringy cosmological patterns?

    For such ideas to emerge in thinking there had to be a time when such conditions were conducive to bubble nucleation? Such energy considerations had to provide for these considerations to emerge so. How so?

    First-order phase transitions (illustrated below) occur through the formation of bubbles of the new phase in the middle of the old phase; these bubbles then expand and collide until the old phase disappears completely and the phase transition is complete.

    During a first-order phase transition, the matter fields get trapped in a `false vacuum' state from which they can only escape by nucleating bubbles of the new phase, that is, the `true vacuum' state.

    G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1). Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

    In order for such thinking to produce the cosmos then we would have to understand its early conditions.

    Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.