Showing posts with label Laughlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Laughlin. Show all posts

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Gold and Fool's Gold

Perhaps the highest density known is reached in neutron star matter (see neutronium). The singularity at the centre of a black hole, according to general relativity, does not have any volume, so its density is undefined.

The most dense naturally occurring substance on Earth is iridium, at about 22650 kg·m-3.

A table of densities of various substances:

So of course seeing this new posting and the ideas of what the gold nugget "is," is supposed to be here in our thinking is of course. Being clarified in terms of how we look at the LHC, most defintiely. Having expert opinion on this is always important. for sure.

Fool's Gold ?

Who is not without some blemish on the "heart values" when it had been held to a goal like truth, and had gone astray? It just matters that you try, and that you hold this value in front of your eyes, as you progress through life.

I was at a loss for what would describe "this beginning" and having looked at what is attained in the "Pascalian triangle", how could I not learn of the spiral induced numbers that lie at the very heart of such creations.

You have to understand what the basis of what this triangle is based upon. I gave clues here.

Some fractorial mathematical based idea, exposed to the matters, as crystaline objects of perception unfolding? Wolfram?

NPR's Richard Harris reports on the beauty of mathematics

How are some things built, that you would ignore "the mathematics at the basis of experience." Having such a geometrical basis is very important. I may call it "Algebraic equations" of Dirac(Lubos take note:), but it is more then that, and it is in the emergence of strings, that we recognize where the conditions are, as the strings basis? You had to understand "the entropic" as well as the CFT issues from the blackhole state? What are the initial conditions?

If I say microseconds, you should immediately assume it is after the big bang.:)Topological "geometrics" eh? :) is much different, then what we see classically of the 3+1? You remember "Klein's ordering of the geometries," of course? Right?

Gold in the Landscape?

I was looking for a specific posting on "Fool's gold" so I thought of Clifford's at Cosmic Variance and the post he created. A specific comment that I made. No, this does not imply anything against Clifford. :)

Here you might refer to the points between Lubos and Bee, about the "initial conditions?" It's "beyond" the placement of what is held in microseconds, and the arrow of time. What! Before time began?

So where is that? What already existed?

However, don't be fooled! The charm of the golden number tends to attract kooks and the gullible - hence the term "fool's gold". You have to be careful about anything you read about this number. In particular, if you think ancient Greeks ran around in togas philosophizing about the "golden ratio" and calling it "Phi", you're wrong. This number was named Phi after Phidias only in 1914, in a book called _The Curves of Life_ by the artist Theodore Cook. And, it was Cook who first started calling 1.618...the golden ratio. Before him, 0.618... was called the golden ratio! Cook dubbed this number "phi", the lower-case baby brother of Phi.

What a Cosmologist Wants From String theory by David Wand

I mean have tried to instill a good foundational perspective of what happens, and what is percieved, in terms of the joining of microsperspective views in regards to the nature of the cosmo?

So what is not revealled here in "my thinking" although we have been directed to the process of the "collidial views" imparted by expert opinion and further glossed by Q's blog building to face this thinking process? :)

A debate/dialogue is always a good thing to initiate, and I have not be too lucky to have somebody to run against my thinking. It's a relief Q. As you say, "I am looking for truth."

So where I am going to go from here? :) Should I go?

Well science has this thingy about experiment and beyond that, beyond the standard model, what thinking shall I introduce? Something "beyond the 3+1" perhaps? :)

Monday, June 05, 2006

Types of Blogging Software

Ask yourself this? What is the new kernel to be, if we had for one moment presented the opportunities for the using Riemann hypothesis, and contained the very idea as a philosophy presented within this blog?

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

Would such a "paradigmal change" allow for insightual software development to take a turn for the better if the understanding existed, that one had already left the cave, and saw the aspects of probable outcomes, as more then the primes and it's integrations with physics mentality, along with theoretical development?

Micro-quantum structures that are exemplfiled, in Monte Carlo methods?

Are we "FREE" to Express?

While I have enjoyed the blogging experience of, and the integration of development that had been going on, the questions remain, as to where this information is deposited and how the moderation of "such a tool" is enforced?

Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.

I have a certain ideology about trying to bring together as much information as possible, by asking, if image linking, and phrase connections, do not involve copyright infringements, and allow the versatility of blogging experience, while respecting the owners of images and wording, while connected directly to their source.

Linux is subversive. Who would have thought even five years ago (1991) that a world-class operating system could coalesce as if by magic out of part-time hacking by several thousand developers scattered all over the planet, connected only by the tenuous strands of the Internet?

Certainly not I. By the time Linux swam onto my radar screen in early 1993, I had already been involved in Unix and open-source development for ten years. I was one of the first GNU contributors in the mid-1980s. I had released a good deal of open-source software onto the net, developing or co-developing several programs (nethack, Emacs's VC and GUD modes, xlife, and others) that are still in wide use today. I thought I knew how it was done.

Linux overturned much of what I thought I knew. I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.

This has been on my mind as I brought together many aspects of the information that is out there. From the respectable information posted by scientists and their personal experiences, to those shared by all, through such blogging experiences. So what was the battle brewing about from those early days and the struggle to develope communities, sharing information, and who are these people today?

AOL=Netscape? Microsoft? Google? Yahoo?

How would such blogging experiences allow the movement forward of society, and the thinking brain, this internet has become?

Are there concerns, that the human being once exposed to the vastness of this information, could bring it together in such a way, as to insight the "new idea" that would forward research and developement? Encourage our minds to percieve in other ways that we are not accustom? I gave an example at the very beginning of this post in regards to the Riemann Hypothesis.

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

This is important to ask, because if such an ability is focused through the individuals efforts using such a medium, how could/would it be exploited, that it could be brought to the forefront of the "thinking brain/internet" and find indeed, that such information is useful?

Meddle then in the internal structure and enforce the rights of deposition as to the respository, and deal with it as you like?

The information depository costs money, I know? Image transference costs money. Then how shall "the dream of the thinking mind" ask, that if the repositories are the resources held in abeyance, until used as seen fit, then why not/should disrupt the information gathering and make it disjointed, while we/you look at it? Before it reveals it's state secret? An open society, right? People who are free?

Robert Laughlin:
Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

This would mean that the very ideas of the internet explosion and control of it becomes in question, as well as, the provders we use to express ourselves on the internet?

How will these repositiories change then in technologies that you and I are very quickly connected in ways that the human mind/internet becomes quite capable of seeing, in ways it is not accustom?

What revolution/paradigmalchange will then happen, that the very experiences we now enjoy, will be defuncedt with all the software solutons to metigate the ability for the individual to do what any of us can do freely, without any ofthe blogging software now demonstrated below?

Shall we choose carefully, read the requirements of, and what conclusion have you reached?

  • b2evolution

  • bBlog

  • Blogger

  • Bloxsom

  • Blojsom

  • Drupal

  • ExpressionEngine

  • Geeklog

  • Greymatter

  • iUpload

  • LifeType

  • LiveJournal

  • Movable Type

  • MvBlog

  • Nucleus CMS

  • PostNuke

  • Roller Weblogger

  • Serendipity

  • Slash

  • TypePad

  • Typo

  • TYPO3

  • WordPress

  • Xanga

  • If we are looking for the new "idea" where shall it arise from then? It is apparent that the early thinking in cosmology has been changed(to include strings ina time sequence of events evn thoguh they be micro seconds) and so too, the values of measure in "time," recognized as problematic, in terms of it's discrete value, when it is very well understood that continuity of expression can be very smooth(yet is it?)?

    The count of Primes begins in Chaos. If we were to think of the Riemann Hypothesis assigned to a scale as an approximation to the prime distribution function, then how woud any pattern suffice to be an "emergent property" of that chaos?

    Sunday, May 14, 2006

    Building our Illusions?

    Back to Fractal Neurodyamics and Quantum Chaos Part 1

    10 Conclusion
    The importance of developing a model of brain function which gives a consistent description of mind, consciousness and free-will, is profound. The model described links the structural instability of brain dynamics, quantum uncertainty and the dual-time model. The quantum-physical brain may thus be more than just an interface between sensory input and decision-making. It may in fact be a doorway between complementary aspects of the physical universe, the time-directed nature of real-particle symmetry-breaking and the time-symmetric aspect of the sub-quantum domain (King 1989). If so, the role of consciousness and mind-brain duality may be central to cosmology.

    While I am no expert by any means and a student of, with my own learning curve, I have struggle to gain understanding of the concepts of that string theory model. That is what my site is about.

    Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

    Yes that is a interesting article, and it could be said the Gabriele is the Father of string theory.

    There were many conceptual problems for me when I kept reading about what the nature of reality could be described as? Cosmological considerations were held to the very beginning, and and anything beyond that was of course not spoken of? What is nothing?

    Birth of the Universe

    It has to do with the "timing" of the energy scale. At 0 second the effect of the universe is what(?) and what set this motivation into existance?

    Quantum Gravity Era:

    A temperature value of10320C and a time of10-43Second.

    Proton-At 10 Microseconds, Quarks are bound into protons and neutrons.

    Well now, it is really important to know where the timeline is, that speaks to "string theories position within the expression of that universe. So, that is important.

    If one had thought the universe entropically very simple, this would have had to held some considertaions to what supersymmetrical realization would mean in regards to that beginning?

    Also, that in that beginning certain ideological factors become known when held to the understanding of the colliders and what is taking place there.

    The blackhole danger creation of in RHIC, as well as, how this extension of thought(strangelets) has been moved to the cosmological particle collisons take place above us. Shower earth with it's particle reductionistic familiars, is an important step in how we speak of the nature of the reality that has been conceptual built as a construct.

    Validity as to it's measures. While in string there has been no confirmation, it is conceptually pitted minds to develope experimental methods in regards to the ideas of the string theory model. As it should.

    Do you know who or what you are? Think about it. There are many illusions in life. The arguably tragic thing is that so many people of the past have lived their entire lives in illusion. They believed in their mental constructs, and took them to be the truth of things. They were confined within their human consciousness, and never looked beyond. They never saw the true potential of consciousness, nor realized the constructive nature of reality. They never realized that their 'truths' were simply mental constructs, including their own sense of self-identity.

    Mental Constructs then? Okay?:)

    Yet there is enough reason to believe, that if the consensus is, that many will share the perceptable value of the construct, then it becomes a major illusion does it not?

    So what do you say of all these people of science who are looking for "what Lies Beneath." Looking to build a understanding in regards to the value of those mental construct?

    Is it worthless to have the mind occupy such a intellectual pursuite, and then say, that if you did not find the correlation and cognitive value to such an insight in regards to the begonning of the universe, then what value is this science if it did not bring us to a closer understanding of "What Lies Beneath?"

    You remember Robert Laughlin?

    So, you may call it "eastern influence" with a philosophical history? Baking bread, or perhaps playing with bubbles, using the explanations as a fundamental reality underneath that reality?

    Articulating Oneself?

    If the title of thread and objective of the article written are to follow the thread of responsibility, then such journies into the fantastic, have to be thought about in regards to the smell of Jasmine? :) That's part of another story, don't worry about it.

    While in the room, devoid of the the branches and trees of the flowering history divine, had one thought about the wind that may drift from a open window, or the residue from having engaged a whole bush??

    What constraints shall you be held too, that the thought about what wording held, might enter the hearts of any other person, that you, consider very carefully the sanesness of that scientist who speaks, for the right things in life, and speaks about the fantastic in such ways?

    It's okay, your human.

    I would say these small fine things, made in such a visual way point to the beauty of life is fantastical and in a warming way much for the soul, regardless.

    You announced yourself, and the intentions of such validation warms your soul when others to speak. That's the way of it, and if it does not come, while with it, others whom may be cruel in their remarks, how shall you deal with it?

    KNow that it is okay to feel the way you do and know too that if you wonder then about the way of doing things, shall it continue to be this way, while such integrity of the soul shows it's hand regardless of what others may have thought. Constrain it to what another thought, feel comfort, that you may be able to speak freely regardless.

    Wednesday, May 10, 2006

    Intuitively Compelling

    While it does appear that Einstein has indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well might he have known himself?

    He was "driven," as to the" focus and outcome" of GR's growth? Yet, being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

    So having engaged the wording of scientist as of late, I wanted to stay as close as I could to the thinking being developed as they engaged society through their blogging site perspectives.

    It was most troubling that any discussing of the timeline and any other constructs place in accordance with that timeline, would/could have been insulting to some, even though it fit into a perspective in terms of microseconds, lesss then somany eseconds of expression.

    Again for sure, "thought constructs," most appropriate measures as yard sticks of reality conforming to model approaches? Be open.

    Thomas Torrance
    In 1978, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his contributions to theology and the relationship between it and science

    You must understand there is a current struggle in today's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted?

    Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.

    I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

    The Nature of Reality
    Having read all of Jane Roberts books( some might not have taken a shine to such information, but part of the developing perspective included information that was written "intuitively compelled"), so she might have answered a little different, but in essence, thought, to the nature of the universe.

    I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

    So you are give this question as to what the nature of the unverse is? What is it, and people are lead through theoretcial constructs to develope perspective on what that question might be?

    Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

    Self Organization of Matter, by Robert Laughlin

    What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel
    Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

    One had to indeed understand that the maps drawn, were drawn from thOught constructS engaged from wanting to understanding where first principles may have emerged from?

    How would you do that without undertanding where this map began?

    So what use to Engage Strangelets, New Physics

    So from a resulting comprehension of such first principles, there came this resulting course of events, that went through all the phase transitions, to become what it is, in context of the strangelet, a perspective about a measure in the IceCap?

    I have been following this research for sometime now. I will be updating this information here].

    One has to know where to begin with all this information, and that such "mental constructs" had to know where this beginning was. While there are few here mathematically endowed, I wanted to come here and share perspectve in context of the neurological idea behind the mental constructs that we develope in science.

    This is not without foundation that, "globally," when we now see, we had indeed step back to access the greater potential in "thought generation," and that "mass psychosis," (could we call it that as such a verification by the masses?)" endowed to measure, experimentally verified.

    I'll wait to see if you want some time to digest and rethink, if you think, it worth doing that? :)

    True creativity often starts where language ends-Arthur Koestler

    Intuitively Compelling=Intuitive Grasp of Self Evident First Principles

    No matter the ideology spread, is there something today that is quite useful in our approaches to cognizing relevance, from "thought constructs" to actual processes, currently asking us our about the beginning of the universe?

    While such solidification ensues from taking a stand, as a concluson drawn, is it compelling as to the nature of what first principles might mean? You had to understand the current environment, to conclude an opinion about the measures and constructs, as to those measures asking if there was another way?

    You couldn't know that, unless you might have read the links of Robert Lauglhin and understood reductionistic tendencies(science), as to the nature of our universe? It's like joining quantum perspective with General Relativity? You would have to known how this was acomplished? It's result, and hence it's application within society?

    If one had not understood, shall we call it a "probabilistic discourse," to have now understood, that a new course may be set today, was different from the past, by "one additional grasp of self evident first principle?" That a new page may be written( what thinking had done so) which may change the course of our lives?

    Of course, some will not have confidence yet. :)
    That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

    Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?

    It All Began in a Dream?

    An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.Srinivasa Ramanujan

    So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?

    "God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance
    Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find.

    Once Comsuming any Model

    It is difficult to explain how one might have "the feeling" for curvature on cosmological plateau while such tendencies for quantum perception would be rule by uncertainty?

    I wonder if such states held in context to what consciousness might be able to percieve at that level of high energy areas, would give indications to particle natures and the curvatures assigned to each particle nature. What gave these meomntum ad emotive feelings to such travel from the initial contact?

    How are we able to pierce this veil and environment, while talking about the nature of such curvatures? We wouldn't survive realistically, yet, we are able to perform "thought constructs" to such models?

    So looking at time dilation, the photon within environments, what indications for such curvatures, and one gets this sense of momentum, and in another way, something that I have called toposense.

    Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

    Constants with and without dimensions

    Nature presents us with various constants. Some of these constants, such as the fine-structure constant, are dimensionless and are not expressed in terms of units. However, other constants, such as the velocity of light or the mass of the proton, are dimensional and their numerical values depend entirely on the units in which they are expressed. The laws of nature do not, of course, depend on a man-made system of units.

    To put this another way, if we want to measure a dimensional constant, we need a "yardstick" to make the measurement. But if we obtained one value when we measured the speed of light on a Monday, say, and a different value when we measured it on a Friday, how would we know that our yardstick had not shrunk or expanded? We would not. Moreover, if we were to interpret our observations as a change in the length of the yardstick, how could we verify it without reference to a second yardstick? Again, we could not. And so on.

    However, dimensionless constants are fundamental absolute numbers, measured without reference to anything else. Therefore, if we want to investigate if the laws of nature are changing we must measure dimensionless quantities such as the fine-structure constant or the ratio of the electron and proton masses

    Friday, May 05, 2006

    What Comes Next?

    What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel

    Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

    You might as well famiiarize yourself with Robert Laughlin's, "Self Organization of Matter."

    I mean if you think of micro-seconds and someone saids to you, it just doesn't make sense( what energy scale the model of strings applied?) then one might have trouble accepting the report on colliders for consideration, and how we view the outcome of the universe from that beginning?

    Nice moose picture in there to look at.

    Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

    Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense - that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology

    Maybe we need a adustment on what we actually thought happenned at the very beginning? Current science writing then needs to reflect what the information is leading us too?

    Quark Soup(Scientific American), is limited then, in what we may think about what happens in those gold ion collisions. The relations, as to what happened cosmologically at the very beginning?

    What are the characteristics of superfluids that we would find the work of Ketterle involved here?

    Berkeley Lab Technology Dramatically Speeds Up Searches of Large DatabasesJon Bashor

    In the world of physics, one of the most elusive events is the creation and detection of “quark-gluon plasma,” the theorized atomic outcome of the “Big Bang” which could provide insight into the origins of the universe. By using experiments that involve millions of particle collisions, researchers hope to find unambiguous evidence of quark-gluon plasma.

    Shouldn't that writing lead us to ponder in our minds the next step?

    A conclusion then about the difficulties upon which thoughts of viscosity with regards to the beginning of that time? The most perfect fluid. A Hydrodynamical calculation then? I am also thinking of the laval nozzle and the back reaction as well.

    You have to forgive me here because it is of some interest that I would like to write, but I would like also to write reasonably and responsibly as well. :)

    Wednesday, April 05, 2006

    Quantum Mechanics: Determinism at Planck Scale

    Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself?- Gerard t' Hooft

    Albert Einstein used harmonic oscillators to understand specific heats of solids and found that energy levels are quantized. This formed one of the key bridges between classical and quantum mechanics.

    Can harmonic oscillators serve as a bridge between quantum mechanics and special relativity?

    It is nice Paul that you continue to bring perspective forward here for consideration.

    I'll hope you will supply the paragraph one day that made the lights go on for you about what you are percieving, and from what you have understood having read Einstein's words in later life. Many tend to think Einstein was unproductive in his later life?

    The basis of the paper you brought forward for inspection, is really quite significant, in my views. I'll tell you what I see and from this discussion, the ideas of what the Riemann's Hypothesis might mean in the expansion of cyclical processes we might have seen in the Ulam spiral perhaps?

    You have been developing that perspective for a quite a while, as your numbers attest to this expression. So what are Poincare cycles? This I'll hold off for a bit, becuase I am returning to the earlier discussion wehad about what Zero actually means. Do you remember? Perhaps you could sum it up again from our consversationin the comment section.

    You describe returning to the Laughlin and the foundational perspectives, for a better look. Type in "emergence" or "first principle" into the blog search feature, would be quite productive I think.

    This is a good indicator to me that the route to describing the process although very difficult in ascertaing value in the "dissapation effect" of the virtual blackhole of Hooft, what value is this insight if it did not have a basis for which it could work?


    One now may turn this observation around. A closed system that can only be in a finite number of different states, making transitions at discrete time intervals, would necessarily evolve back into itself after a certain amount of time, thus exhibiting what is called a Poincar´e cycle. If there were no information loss, these Poincar´e cycles would tend to become very long, with a periodicity that would increase exponentially with the size of the system. If there is information loss, for instance in the form of some dissipation effect, a system may eventually end up in Poincar´e cycles with much shorter periodicities. Indeed, time does not have to be discrete in that case, and the physical variables may form a continuum; there could be a finite set of stable orbits such that, regardless the initial configuration, any orbit is attracted towards one of these stable orbits; they are the limit cycles.

    So Hooft is explaining this for us here? Only in a "positive" expression?

    Before movng onthen soemthings would have had to been made clear as far as I can tell in regards to the basis of what zero actually means.

    An Energy of Empty Space?

    Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothingness. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property of space that Einstein discovered is that more space can actually come into existence. Einstein's gravity theory makes a second prediction: "empty space" can have its own energy. This energy would not be diluted as space expands, because it is a property of space itself; as more space came into existence, more of this energy-of-space would come into existence as well. As a result, this form of energy would cause the universe to expand faster and faster as time passes. Unfortunately, no one understands why space should contain the observed amount of energy and not, say, much more or much less.

    Once you get to th ebulk space it is extremely hard to explain how I gothere in my visual thinking but it is true that I see dynamcial spaces and all inlcusive views of the science of this original encapsulated in a geometrical process. Whether it's right or not is another question. I know this:)

    While D brane analyisis had been given to another for perspective in relation to how we see Belenstein bound and the horizon of value, being describe by CFT, we know well then that the abstraction of D brane thinking has to answer to those microscopial visonistic qualites of a very dynamcial place?

    That what has happen inside the blackhole, had something else as well to consider? Anomalies in perception then exist in how we see the quark Gluon plasma in relation to the principals of superfluids.

    Why molasses and ice cream production might seem important to some, while others might dismiss the childest antics of the condense matter theorist?

    So while these things are happening we should know that the condition elevated to bulk persepctive would have one see graviton production, as constituents of this bulk space. This derivation placed the bulk perspectve within grasp of what the harmonic oscillator means as we move our peceptions to the flat spacetime arrived at in the production of the quark Gluon plasma, that we are so boldly talking about here in views of the langrangian space.

    I see in the WMAP perspective held to analogies of the sound in polarization modes as, nodes and anti-nodes and are really interesting when held to that perspective about what we might think of in relation to how we see particle physics having undergone a model change, as well as a perspective one as well.

    This is a fifth dimensional view accomplished.


  • Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

  • Harmonic Oscillation

  • Warm Dark Matter

  • Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
  • Thursday, March 09, 2006

    Looking for the Kernel of Truth

    Wikimedia Commons

    How developmental perspective is created and endures, for those of us who are not to well informed as to the nature of specific information on the internet. How can it grow? How can we stay better informed?

    Kernel (Mar 09 2006 Wikipedia)

    In computer science the kernel is the core of an operating system. It is a piece of software responsible for providing secure access to the machine's hardware and to various processes (computer programs in a state of execution).

    It' like looking for a needle in the haystack? So part of the knowledge gain is to understand the history and developement of what is currently embedded within our everyday world, that we might know that the very blog information center might have been based on one held by Microsoft technology or one held as another form, in the Open Space. Google's Bloggery, or WordPress?

    One might never had known the history about what you had taken for granted? But since these counter opportunities can push one another, as we might push people to explain themself, or refute other people's science, such a trend has competitiveness arising, to bring out the best of both worlds? Not to reinforce the stagnacy of progressiveness, that I might see in the software developing attitude of the internet, as well, as being lead by science. Any domnination over the markey place reduces the viability of expression and probabilties inherent in recognition of the source.

    Linux (Mar 09 2006 Wikipedia)
    Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel. It is one of the most prominent examples of free software and of open-source development; unlike proprietary operating systems such as Windows, all of its underlying source code is available to the public for anyone to freely use, modify, improve, and redistribute.

    If you look hard enough on the internet you will find it? What do I mean by the kernel. Those who are computer savy might know? Well I'll try and explain as best as I can to show the divergence in thinking, that the control of the internet might fall under.

    Two things come to mind when I think about the internet, and one of these has to do with structuralism defined in software usage. The way in which the kernel can be passsed on, even admidst the "faultering of good blogs" held in light of what the good scientists might see in such a developement.

    The second thing was draw attention too, is the "creativity factor" that would operate in the realm of such structures? That the limit placed on access to the kernel of truth might have, if access was limited or censored, as to the choice of Click/space, where a better mind would see and know not to engage. "Knowledge gained" would discrimminate as to where these factors would not be in agreement with the current idea of those things lead by science.

    Any counter to ths idea, would then be based on what is currently known according to the idea of those of us lead by science, not some speculation as to the ultimate theory you might have, but a question of what nature might have implied, maybe?

    Now before I go on I want to tell you another story that may trigger some understanding as to why I might be reisstant to structuralism fallen into the hands of those who would cohort society into the way that they would want sociey to believe. Control it the way they want them to see.

    Nelson Bunker Hunt

    The son of Texas oil billionare H. L. Hunt, who was believed to be the richest man in the world at the time of his death, Nelson Bunker Hunt also entered the oil business. His explorations led to a partnership with British Petroleum and the discovery of the Sarir Field in Libya in 1961. In December of 1972, the government of Muammar al-Qaddafi moved against Hunt and demanded a 50-percent participation in its operations. When Hunt refused, the property was nationalized by the government in 1973. That same year, the members of the Hunt family, possibly the richest family in America at the time, decided to buy precious metals as a hedge against inflation. The Hunts bought silver in enormous quantity.

    Now gaining control of markets and conglomerization is the vast attempt to control, and I would not not like to see such things happen. So a counter viewpoint is always struck, depending on the position we assume? Jacque Distler is working to control Spambot and I give indications here and here. I think one does not realize how insignficant this idea of "trackback is" that I would say that those with the better minds would enlisted a comprehensive view directly related, and only those with the knowledge will be able to refute. Thus it never changes the kernel of truth, once you had recognized "it's source."

    Looking to find the "motivations" in developers is sometimes like this, that we soon learn to see through the "Blog presentation" before us. That we can see through the information, through the personality, to see what science is being offered. If I was to compare Lubos Motl's site in relation to Peter Woit's site, what information currently in science is being extended and lead by science?

    Because it held string/M/D Brane theory related information does not make it less palatable to reason. Only that such a string attached, makes the issues of science more or less tangilble is one wondering?

    To me it pushes the envelope of progression and developement. What basis of it's theoretical constructive nature is understandable in the comments of Robert Laughlin about this structuralism. An implied correlation to soft ware developement maybe? I would like to thnk the source can contain many probabilites when whe such a source is reference.

    So there is still the understanding of the Kernel of Truth, in perspective here that such attempts to control the internet, would have any position adopt software developement, to control, and say that such legal action taken, would be, to say that this software would not be the ultimate structure on all computers, but that other options might be implored too.

    Okay you still with me so far?

    The Cathedral and the Bizarre by Jeff Lewis

    The problem there is that the 'capitalist trench' problem is just as real in OpenSource as it is in commerical product: once a group buys into a specific solution, the cost of changing grows with time. That's true even if the software is 'free' because the maintenance costs and time to convert to another solution are not

    Is there not some poorman's truth to what is cost driven, that he might want to know that the possibilties and probabilites in an opensource, allow him to move, without being curtailed to the way those who gain control would allow you to think, and be creative on the internet.

    Tuesday, March 07, 2006

    Have we seen (strange) quark matter?

    Well the very idea that such a thing could exist, has been part of the evolving information I had been going through. To be lead to the understanding, of what new Physics would emerge fromm cosmological and collidial events. That there are indeed showers of particles with which such events will let us know cannot be ignored.

    First Principle needed to recognize "the very state" that things would arise from. For Robert Laughlin, a condense matter theorist, it didn't mater what you called these building blocks, but any discrete measure had to be recognized it's energy value and tragectories would it not? Hence, the particle shower from a known state of existance, where "first principle" would emerged.

    So, any attempt to ignore the possibility of what emerges, and the foundational perspective, put forth in theory, has to help the understandng of what happens when such events do happen, either, micro perspectively or cosmologically.

    Any attempts to say that the standard model is not inclusive in this design, would be detrimental to the very statement any mathematican would say against, that simply erasing any connection, would have been futile to their creditbility?

    Strange Quark Matter TheoryTamas S. Biro

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be the theoretical summary talk of the Strange Quark Matter 2003 conference. When I was alerted by the e-mail we all got, “prepare your transparencies”, I took this home-work exercise seriously. I have prepared quite a few pages before this conference. What can one know in advance, before listening to the talks?.

    First of all there is a general outline which a summary talk should follow. On the level of the basic theory one is supposed to conclude about the present status of the underlying theoretical concepts, one ought to emphasize important news, the novel aspects we are encountering, and finally it is useful to formulate in a possibly definite way, what our perspectives for further development are.

    So given the research that I had been going through, what is this strangelet subject that was developed, and I will post links that support the development of the fear with which such a thing arose. Was answered, by cosmological and collidial production of microstate blackhole events. Might the story and television series of blackholes been interrupted by such a dialogue, or had I furthered the plot for public consumption? To continue the fear?

    Would your scientist/mathematican friend tell you about such things and ways in which to expect information from experimental designs, as not leading into the desire of the essence of new physics?

    What began this assumption, was the idea that microstate blackholes were something of a danger, if we were to created them. That was the nightmare. The reality is, that this theoretically written state, is quite useful in terms of what can emerge from the idea of new physics, and had to include the standard model.

    To get to new physics you had to have the standard model as a basis, and to move from that point, any resulting shower and new information, like in ICECUBE, along with the historiy and research of neutrinos, points to what? Strangelets to what?

    Peter Woit dissassociated himself from that possibility, and if strings was to underly this view, what says, such advancements had not adhered to the demands of theoretcial proposition, that it now sees itself, as part and parcel of the planning for what else will emerge? Sees itself immersed in tachyon demonstration as a sign of cerenkov radiation as that blue light?

    So indeed I struggle with how such theorectical position might have told me what is going on, and this issue, is not to be ignored as long as it is remianing consistant with the developement from standard model presumptions.

    Paul first, and then I had been wondering about this issue right back in the beginning as it came to our attention. Steinberg and clarifications on what the microstate balckhole is was important, as it demonstrates the basis of work being done taking the energies and collidial events, to a new level of reductionistic perception. The microstate blackhole is the basis as far as I can tell.

    Now given the state of Quark Gluon Plasma, what happens when you see such things hhappeniing that you have to aassume a new theoretcial position like M theory that such D Brane assumptions talk abut the viscosity nature? What are the poperties that have emerged from the idea of the blackhole, as this new state of matter tells us something about superfluids and such?

    Does Peter understand these new developments? Does his own theoretical position from model assumption he also used, have correlates to current day information and research? It had been my hope, that his position would have created the dialogue necessary. I have enjoyed the mathematical adventures he has shown has developed further my perspective as shown, in the very last link below.

    In order to have the perspective and vision of the abstract world of the mathematics shown, you needed to know some things. They had to be couched in the history of all that we have learnt, and any modification in mathematical language, alters that perspective, if it relates to the very work you are doing on extending the standard model?


  • Quark Gluon Plasma II

  • Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

  • Strangelets in Cosmic Consideration

  • Cosmic Rays Collsions ad Strangelets Produced

  • Quark Stars

  • Accretion Disks

  • Evidence for Extra Dimensions and ICECUBE

  • All Particle of te Standard Model and Beyond
  • Friday, February 24, 2006

    Plato and Aristotle

    Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

    Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

    I wanted to remind people of something quite profound as we look at Raphael's picture above. That it would be in such a position as that of the signatores relation, had been more of hindrance to me. Here, any document with which was to be signed, as representing the whole Catholic Church.

    I would have liked to have seen the better message be, that this room would sign all faiths, all religions, to something built into each of us. It is something that we will take from pondering such a picture. It will become part of us.

    PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

    I wanted to create this post as it has been sitting on my mind right from the every beginning and inception of this Blog. While my discription had been drawn from historical reference, the stage(Arch), from this beginning, is a interesting one.

    Without the ability to have teachers hold one's hand all the way through the process to knowledge development, it was necessary that confidence be built into any who would adventure to such learning and research. So I developed a early a conceptual framework that would draw attention to "insight developement" through states of "correlation of cognition," as signs evident in, the natural world around us.

    These were important features of model consumptions, and the "simplestic idealizations" behind their developement. If you saw this from working the model, then what value any prediction, and if you had saw insightually into the workings?

    Right and Left
    I came across this thinking in my adventures, where such distinctions held in the opening at the top of this page, might had arisen from left and right brain people? Would have been attributed to characteristics of the very minds who involved themself in the ways with which they might approach science today? Brain matter is encase, are our minds too?

    There seems to be something special about positions historically identified to current day researchers? This came to me while I was doing early research on Plato and Aristotle themself. Underneath this picture, painted in the center, Plato and Aristotle stand. Look at what had been taken for further inspection below. What does it's link imply?

    Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

    What was even more provoking, was the way in which I could see this arche identified in oppositions of scientists, who would lead us into the explorations of what and how we have come to where we are today.

    Can you see yourself in the figures of fathered archetypes, embedded within our consciousness, to have known, that such an evolution was part and parcel of the scientific process in the developement of your very own minds?

    "I would like to be like Feynman," yells Lubos, dememaning all philosophical adventures, while Anon screams, "no, I am Feynman." I would say you both have your place in all this. We just didn't recognize where it would come from, so we emmulated our teachers, and the teachers before them? Oh dear Aristotle, how are you?

    Feynman and Gellman
    For instance let us say that Feynman's thnking was more like Artistoles, while Gellman's Plato's

    What was distinctive about either was that one, Gellman saw eternal and immutable patterns inhernet in the phenomena of the material world, while, Aristotle saw these as myth? Feynmen worshiped nature itself.

    While discarding the myth, as philosphical pandering, are you a Feynmen who sees what is underlying, as a possible abstraction? If so, you would have been in good company with Robert Laughlin and the issues of condense matter physicist, and the relevance of building blocks of nature as, irrelevant? Oui! NOn?

    Not by inception of strings that had implied itself as a discriptor of the very underlying feature of all that exists? How could we have seen that such a expression and revolt would have taken such thinking to further the basis of the standard model, to incorporate the graviton? To have conceptually incorporated the "Bulk."

    You needed Plato?:)

    Friday, January 06, 2006

    The Blackhole as a Superfluid: It's Viscosity

    Now you must understand that thinking of any first principle is hard to refrain from, especially, if one had thought like I do, that the geometrical tendencies are inherent in the way this is handled, and that it leads to other things? "The equations of relativity fail, and new laws emerge." saids George Musser. " A quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured."

    That's important, is it not from a geometrical perspective, because from this Dirac's visionary quest might have said, that here lies the opportunity for such a notion to begin, hyperbolically, or spherically. One way, or the other??

    Blackhole substances are perhaps the most-perfect fluids in existence because they have ultra-low viscosity.
    No matter what you call it, though, that substance and others similar to it could be the most-perfect fluids in existence because they have ultra-low viscosity, or resistance to flow, said Dam Thanh Son, an associate physics professor in the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington.

    Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

    Lubos Motl:
    The quark picture is more ordinary and materialistic but the black hole picture with an extra dimension is actually more useful to understand some general laws, such as the bounds on viscosity.

    The problem might have been missed, with what one might, or should have look at? Herein the condense matter specialist might have thought hey, a superfluid indeed, and we have created a blackhole of a kind? What is this Bound Viscosity?

    Sungho Hong on December 6, 2003 :
    There is an interesting proposal by Andreas Karch. With certain assumtions, he showed that the entropy bound implies the viscosity bound. Moreover, this relation seems true even beyond the assumptions that he made. An interesting point is that the tabletop experiments could test this. The viscosity of superfluid He4 misses the bound only by a factor of 10.

    Thse ideas that begin to manifest, have been from venturing into ideas of expeirmentation. What had arisen from blackholes in our colliders?

    Frozen Stars
    Black holes may not be bottomless pits after all
    By George Musser July 2003

    Under the right conditions, a fluid can turn into a superfluid, governed by quantum mechanics even on macroscopic scales. Chapline, along with physicists Evan Hohlfeld, Robert B. Laughlin and David I. Santiago of Stanford University, has proposed that a similar process happens at event horizons. The equations of relativity fail, and new laws emerge. "If one thinks of spacetime as a superfluid, then it is very natural that in fact something physical does happen at the event horizon--that is, the classical event horizon is replaced by a quantum phase transition," Chapline says.

    So you don't lose sleep, or the world is a nice place, la te da... because it is what it is?:) It's just a generalization, as any assumption of the data might have convinced one, either way? What is it's value?

    One might have assume because of the time involved, that accumulation and gatherings, might have taken up residence at the center of the earth. So? Okay? :)

    Friday, December 09, 2005

    Laughlin, Reductionism, Emergence

    I am still operating from the idea of Xtra-Dimensions. What motivating force would have brought such a quantum gravity group together and the aspect it might have spoken from? What mysterious forces motivates all these ladies/ gentlemen?

    Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

    Can I hardly leave this post written below in my linked coment without some further explanantion?

    You have to be careful about words like “emergent,” because it has pre-existing connotations that may or may not be relevant to how the theory ends up actually working.

    You know for me it became the quest to understand what the basis of reality was. So if one is given perspective to think about from different angles, then the very idea of a "emergent process unfolding from the quantum gravity regimes", then it would have been a truly ground breaking acknowledgement of what the basis of reality really is?

    I would have thought the modifications to GR might have signalled some truth to what was emergent(although this would ask us what that quantum geometry is?) from a condense matter perspective, as Witten saids below.

    I also heard Robert Laughlin say, it didn’t matter if you use bricks or sargeant majors?

    I had trouble with this ,and looking at CFT on the horizon, it made me think of string as a fifth dimensional component within the blackhole. Is this wrong and misleading, not to have looked at the spacetime fabric a a graviton constituent since these modifications were made to GR?

    My thoughts were developing in perspectve as I did my own research, so all of a sudden the basis of the views that I was capturing started to make sense. What were people doing with the very ideaas of this theory of everything?

    One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist’s suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

    The Elephant?

    Now having given the poem there for Sean's introduction to Mind and the poetry, we are given a sense of what the historical issues plaguing the ideas of quantum gravity? Filled with the perplex of citizens of a town? To have the proverb, this hinduist portrayal, Sufi expressed, as a lessson in our attempts to understand. It was not me, who first used John Saxes poem in the Physics realms, so do you know who this was?

    So now we have this condense matter approach to consider? I wonder how well it will do when people share perspective about "this approach" to have taken a strong stance against Robert Laughlin's theory of everything? Where are you Peter Woit? What is your way, that you should be so different from what Lubos is saying below?

    Lubos Motl:
    All of us agree that some important features of physical phenomena do not depend on the details of underlying physics; many of these phenomena are emergent in character; it is not too important or useful to know quarks or strings in order to study most of the crucial concepts in biology, climate, physics of water, or quantum computing. If Laughlin thinks that other physicists do not realize this fact, then he is fighting a strawman. Most physicists realize these things - and many fundamental physicists actually use very similar mathematical techniques as Laughlin does in his "emergent" approach.

    So is there a consensus on how the science of our day recogizes the work that is trying to make iself known, as the truth and the light of the way? What does the elephant represent?

    Robert Laughlin:
    Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

    How far in depth shall our abstract views look, as one uses the math to gaze into the "blackhole of oblivion" and wonder? What constitues the very nature from that very horizon. How shall Robert Laughlin speak on it? How shall he speak about the trigger?

    Thursday, October 27, 2005

    Strings and No_Sense?

    Well for me, if theorists have mathematically created a vision of things, how is it possible not to have generalized their views on what they had learnt about the theories they talk about?

    "Shut up and Calculate" would definitely appeal to a lot math minded there at the forefront of Cosmic Variance. But really, how are you going to distance yourself from such generalizations? It seeps out of your pores :)

    So, no_sense could capture it? Now, Now, if this were the case then such analogies would not have been shared by the more briiliant. Non? Thank you, Michio Kaku.

    As to "first principle," what are these building blocks called that make up the reality we so cherish. Robert Laughlin has something to say about this, and I am sure condense matter physicists would also say, it don't matter, if you use bricks or sergeant majors.

    You arrive at some "point of view" where all agree that the Physicist's walking across the room, will have in tow, their students? Okay a bad comparison, but all branches form a wonderful view of the insurgency theorists attack, using a method to recognition of that "emergent property" will speak too, and so kindly of.

    So we are to the point of the model? Bring it on, Clifford. Do you really want me to sumarize this point?

    I can but it would take time and I would have to explain why high energy valutions had run into limitations. Now if it had been a experiemental setup that one could incorporate in space, and we do, don't get me wrong here. John Ellis helped to make this clear in our recognition of the Pierre Auger experiments and Steinberg's recognition of microstate blackholes that would quickly dissipate.

    But in a tighter control recognition of particle reductionism, a " extra enormous energy valution" is inherently needed? NOn? They progressively/reductionistically move to this point, through the trial and errors, of their ways.

    Ah heck! Clifford, I got ahead of myself here. So I'll think I'll stop, so you can fill us in from a more expert opinion.

    Tuesday, October 18, 2005

    What are those Quantum Microstates

    Now two points occupy my mind that hold questions as to what and how such counting can be done in terms of geometric propensity, that would allow these geometries into topological states. First point is:

    Lubos Motl said:
    We need to get closer to the "theory of everything", regardless of the question whether the destination is a finite or infinite distance away. (And yes, the path should not be infinitely long because there is no physics "below" the Planck length.)

    And the second:

    Black holes and branes in string theory

    But it has been discovered through string duality relations that spacetime geometry is not a fundamental concept in string theory, and at small distance scales or when the forces are very strong, there is an alternate description of the same physical system that appears to be very different.

    So what then would say that non linear approaches would now have taken form in our talks, that what was once geoemtrically feasible, had been taken down to the length where no new geometry is involved. So lets see then how shall we verbalize what happens at the horizon, in terms of radiation, that such states never existed to make this possible?

    Now there are always reasons that one moves into the historical to gain perspective. By doing this, you gain insight and advance thinking to reveal theoretical developement, and where it has taken us. So by using thse linked paragraph statements, we are revealling something about Blackholes that had been culminative, to have discussions in todays world. Like BPS blackhole dynamics.

    Andrew Strominger is an American theoretical physicist who works on string theory. He is currently a professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Society of Fellows. His contributions to physics include:

    Now one thing that troubles me about Lubo's statement, is the idea that supersymmetry valuation could ever be entertained, had we not consideedr this avenue of some importance. Not just in terms of symmetry breaking, but of the illustrous states of existance, that would exemply this idea where the superfluid could rest itself, and provide for the base of operation for these new universes?

    To the second point, by providing for the idea of a geometry to emerge from this vast ocean of vast probabilites. Again for me, to see this I recognized that "space is not empty", and that such a congregation of gravitonic perception would have to be culminative, in some form for such a superfluid to exist?

    So one had to get there geometrically from this ten dimensional perspective to have some basis to fuel developement into other stages of existance. Some geometric form, that would reduce, such valuations to supersymmetrical thinking and allow such a developemental process to cyclical natures. of that same universe.

    Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

    The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

    So indeed then three conditions had been satisfied, that issues about the physics involved had something to say about quantum mechanics, gravity and computation of entrophy of blackholes respectively.

    The animation shows schematically the behavior of the gas molecules in the presence of a gravitational field. We can see in this figure that the concentration of molecules at the bottom of the vessel is higher than the one at the top of the vessel, and that the molecules being pushed upwards fall again under the action of the gravitational field.

    What is black hole entropy?

    Suppose we have a box filled with gas of some type of molecule called M. The temperature of that gas in that box tells us the average kinetic energy of those vibrating molecules of gas. Each molecule as a quantum particle has quantized energy states, and if we understand the quantum theory of those molecules, theorists can count up the available quantum microstates of those molecules and get some number. The entropy is the logarithm of that number.
    When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.

    Microstate Blackhole Production

    Peter Steinberg
    Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don't make a "real" black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase's point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a "dual" black hole. But what does "dual" mean in this context? It's not "two-ness" in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

    Monday, August 22, 2005

    What Lies Beneath

    The Bottom up approach?

    The paper by Senthil et al. [9] is an attempt to address this issue mathematically. It deals specifically with a suspicion many of us have had that quark confinement, one of the most cherished features of the standard model, may be a collective effect that emerges at a phase transition and thus not fundamental at all. The paper is complicated, an unfortunate side effect of the difficulty of the task, for it is not generally possible to deduce emergent phenomena from first principles. The best one can do is postulate them and then demonstrate plausibility by showing that small corrections get smaller as the measurement scale increases. Such convoluted arguments are ripe with opportunities for mistakes, regardless of how careful the authors have been, so the test of emergent universality that counts is always experimental. This, in turn, forces the theory to address not quark confinement itself but an allegory of it one might hope to test in a table-top experiment. The logic is maddeningly indirect, but unfortunately the only approach that is legitimately scientific.

    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.

    In the Q<->Q measure, the understanding of this distance in the metric was understandable?

    Now this is March of 2000.

    What Lies Beneath?

    Still as a layman, such general talks need better clarification? If you set the stage from planck length, then how indeed does LQG arise here?

    Here's another view.

    Witten:One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

    Robert Laughlin:The true origin of these rules is the tendancy of natural systems to organize themselves according to collective principles. Many phenomena in nature are like pointillist paintings. Observing the fine details yields nothing but meaningless fact. To cor rectly understand the painting one must step back and view it as a whole. In this situation a huge number of imperfect details can add up to larger entities of great perfection. We call this effect in the physical world emergence.

    Wednesday, August 17, 2005

    Unexpected High energies of Cosmic Rays

    Plato said:
    I am thinking about Lee Smolin’s history here in terms of discrete measures ( I am developing a perspective here in relation that will be complied later) How this effected the the way Lee may have viewed the background. I don’t want to speak for Lee Smolin, but I would like to make it simple.:)

    Can this difference be as simple as, “a determination between “being discrete, and implying continuity“?

    Where strings implying only tree features, while the approach to glast, as a “new view” supported by "Doubly Special Relativity", that Rovelli and Lee produced? This basis and history is what I am compiling.

    One can ask any question and have it loaded, with lots of information. But just trying to bring something to simple clarity, even in conceptual framesworks is not always easy, if you don' ask the question?

    Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit

    The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK limit) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays from distant sources.

    This limit was computed in 1966 by Kenneth Greisen, Vadem Kuzmin and Georgi Zatsepin, based on interactions predicted between the cosmic ray and the photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of 5×1019 eV would interact with CMB photons to produce pions. This would continue until their energy fell below the pion production threshold. Therefore, extragalactic cosmic rays with energies greater than this threshold energy should never be observed on Earth.

    Unsolved problems in physics: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high, given that there are no possible near Earth sources, and that rays from distant sources should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?A number of observations have been made by the AGASA experiment that appear to show cosmic rays from distant sources with energies above this limit (whimsically dubbed Oh-My-God particles). The observed existence of these particles is the so-called GZK paradox or cosmic ray paradox.

    Anyway, this was brought up and the questioned asked, because I did understand something that even if it was based on theoretical definitions might have been ones that were different from another, and brought the scorn of high energy physicists to wonder, where such principles had been raised in terms of quantum gravity?

    So lookng at Lee's position and it becomes clear when one does the research on cosmological scenarios, that no wonder you want the string theorist on side, in this debate.

    John Ellis is a fine educator when it come to laying the simple view to avenues related to both High energy physics and the relation in Pierre Auger determination.

    Imagine microstate blackholes, and I wonder what "this trigger is" that would make life so much easier if we could determine the background,versus non background debate in terms of these experimental positions?

    So strings and Loop quantum are face to face here in our informational predictions, about outcomes of the background versus the non-background, and getting to the source of this debate, from a physics interpretation and a expeirmental one, has always been the quest I think, and one supported by Lee Smolin.

    So what rationality might have issue from the basis of that theoretcial position, and like I said before, it seems what pubic relations the top scientists have with the public, is to lay the foundation at the front door in a simple a way as possible from the blogosphere. What other way is so simple and direct tot he public that such distance could now been narrow to someone like Clifford in Cosmic INvariance, speaking to this very subject. Any the link below this sets the tune, and here th econtinuation of th equestion I had there that has not been repsonded too, becuase of the layman underdevleoped view of where top theoretorcians reside.

    I'll give it a stab anyway. There seems to be a certain romance I have with the subject, that does not require money from any avenue, and such grants, far from the layman's view that doing this for fun, has been most rewarding becuase it brought me to see in different ways in the bulk, that others in simple life care not, and walk their way.

    Plato said:
    Seeking clarity in relation to experimental propositions of Glast 2006 and how it shall support one’s position over another? Will it?

    High energy relevance had to meet each other in a way that cosmologically had something to do with high energy perceptions in relation to the trigger? Link on name.

    The “beginning”, as first principles? Robert Laughlin saids no to “first principles”?:)

    Since it is hard to put a link within a link, I thought I better put link on name here as well.

    I really hate quoting myself, but alas the move is to continue regardless, so onto, "Gubser and structure information."

    Lubos Motl said:
    Steve Gubser (from Princeton) has just gave an interesting talk at the joint seminar in which he tried to convince us that structure formation (the process in which the early clumps of matter and the first galaxies were born) is a very interesting topic in cosmology, even for string theorists, in which some signs of new physics may be found if one tries to reproduce the observations.

    How indeed would one see gluonic perception at this level bringing us ever closer to views on the window of the universe, and such leaidng indicators has to bring some noton to what started in the beginning? Non?

    Monday, May 30, 2005

    Microstates and Gravity

    Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

    I was scanning over at Sean Carroll's blog and noticed his current article. It seems he is doing some kind of exorcism?:)

    Entropy and intelligence

    Consider the following system: a rectangular container filled part way with tiny spheres, some of them made of glass and some of brass. All the spheres have equal size, but the brass ones are heavier than the glass ones. Okay, now please tell me which of these configurations has the lowest entropy (or highest order, or greatest complexity, or whatever it is that you think only intelligence can bring into existence):

    Now what was appealing to me here is the question of arrangement, and how chaotic systems might have been ruled by other consequences? Like gravity. So troubled by the analogy presented and distancing myself from some satanic feature of intelligent dsign, I wonder, what is going on here?

    The animation shows schematically the behavior of the gas molecules in the presence of a gravitational field. We can see in this figure that the concentration of molecules at the bottom of the vessel is higher than the one at the top of the vessel, and that the molecules being pushed upwards fall again under the action of the gravitational field.

    Now if I was to wonder about what would govern these thoughts, then indeed the question is raised that such intelligence is governed by a organizational ability that evolved from a better understanding of these graviational influences?

    I am a junior here so the idea that such a exorcism would have been dispelled in this attempted has me wondering. Is there some greater design here in elminating the abilities of capable good thinking people and spooky actions, that have defied explanation?

    A nice airplane ride is always fruitful to higher forms of thinking here? Time clocks, still exemplify some characteristics on molecular arangements? As well as Einstein and liethe impulsive qualites that such characters appeal to the scolastic heroes of our time, we are drawn by some inexplicable force to wonder about natures way?

    Self Organization of Matter

    Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.


  • Quantum Microstates