Showing posts with label planck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planck. Show all posts

Monday, October 09, 2006

Box Counting or "Points" on the Strings Length?

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory! Author Unknown


We understand I think the relevance in regards ot the cosmological views that GR helps us understand in the curvatures inherent as an expression of the cosmos.

What we may have trouble with is the value we may assign such curvatures taken down to the quantum regime. This may seem incompatible, yet, the dynamical nature of the energy is never really that far from speaking from the particle/energy inhernet in nature, as a energy determinant value?

Why would you treat the quantum realm any different then you would the cosmological one, if the assumption is that GR is predicted?



Fractal Dimenison-Tree Silhoutte

I like to think of the "roots and the rings of history" here so that you may see the comparative value of thinking of the "building blocks" not so much as "boxes" but as energy values related to the circle.




There really was a reason to fear pathological entities like the Koch coastline and Peano's monster curve. Here were creations so twisted and distorted that they did not fit into the box of contemporary mathematics. Luckily, mathematics was fortified by the study of the monsters and not destroyed by them. Whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

Take the Koch coastline and examine it through a badly focused lens. It appears to have a certain length. Let's call it 1 unit. Sharpen the focus a bit so that you can resolve details that are ⅓ as big as those seen with the first approximation. The curve is now four times longer or 4 units. Double the resolution by the same factor. Using a focus that reveals details 1/9 the first focus gives us a coastline 16 times longer and so on. Such an activity hints at the existence of a quantifiable characteristic.

To be a bit more precise, every space that feels "real" has associated with it a sense of distance between any two points. On a line segment like the Koch coastline, we arbitrarily chose the length of one side of the first iterate as a unit length. On the Euclidean coordinate plane the distance between any two points is given by the Pythagorean theorem


Planck time and what new physics would we have shown once we got down to these lengths? The energy of discernation has deluded us into what was once uncertainty has now QGP idealizations and the inherency of the thinking along side of high energy considerations.

Discretium and continuity are not at odds here just that the "realm of thinking" is limited to the GR suppositons about what the world is in cosmological discretium views? Yet, we know at such levels, the "continuity" of the energy has taken over. The coast lines appear fuzzy, yet in "box counting" it doesn't seem that way. What are it's limitations then, when our views meet uncertainty about what discribes the coast line? Shall we now refer to the days, weeks, months, as an energy valuation of the circle, in the trees root and the history it contains?

Pick a "ring/circle" of the tree and tell me what happen during that time?

Monday, October 02, 2006

CP Violation

The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean. Bernhard Riemann




ON a macroscale the blackhole is a understanding of when we investigate curvature parameters with regards to the nature of our universe in spacetime. We understand this right?

What are the "entropic valuations" being recognized as we look to a earlier time of when the QGP existed and then such manifestaion in the "matters states" have exemplified such characteristics as?


Both space and spacetime can either be curved or flat.


I am going to give you a quick summation of what GR is. It is about "Gravity." Now if you hold that in mind you should not loose any time with what I am telling you.

Now, how is it that we can see the dynamcial nature of the universe, yet, we would not consider the effect of the presence of microstate blackholes in regards to such gatherings in the space, of what we call "spacetime?" What would "such gatherings" show of itself?


A circle of radius r has a curvature of size 1/r. Therefore, small circles have large curvature and large circles have small curvature. The curvature of a line is 0. In general, an object with zero curvature is "flat."


Think about the "circle" and it's 2D view of what the blackhole is doing in 3D +time in context of many blackholes. I always refer to "one" so you can see the comparative view that I am having little success in transferring to you, in what I am seeing.

The curvature parameters are closely associated to the thermodynamic realizations. This is importnat not only on a cosmological level, but on a microstate as well.

Lubos explains that here.

Lubos:
There are lots of other examples what you can do to increase the number of black holes. Change the couplings so that the stars burn their fuel faster, and they will collapse into black hole faster. Reduce the gap between the Planck scale and the QCD scale, and nuclear collisions will be more likely to end up as black holes.

It is quite obvious that the change of virtually any parameter of the Standard Model (plus inflation) in the right direction (one of the two directions) will result in an increase of the number of black holes. How can you doubt such a trivial thing?


So there is something about the nature of our universe and the balance that it seeks to maintain of itself? Here we are, looking at events within the cosmo and "secular views of it's manfiestation" different then other locations within the universe. Yet not apart from it, or not indifferent to it's nature to be part of a larger picture?



Silicon Vertex Tracker. The SVT is the heart of the BABAR experiment at SLAC—in the photo, physicists are putting the finishing touches on improvements to the detector. (Photo Courtesy of Peter Ginter)
SLAC's BaBar collaboration has discovered that CP violation—an asymmetry between the behavior of matter and antimatter—exists even in a very rare class of particle decays. This result offers the most sensitive avenue yet for exploring matter-antimatter asymmetries, with implications for the future understanding of physics beyond the Standard Model.

"BaBar has proven to be a fantastic instrument for exploring the origins of matter-antimatter asymmetries, allowing us to probe with exquisite precision very rare processes related to how the early universe came to be matter dominated," said David MacFarlane, BaBar Spokesperson and Professor at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.


So here we are having been given the example of CP violation above and here?

How is it that anything could be asymmetrical? :) So you introduce anti-matter and matter?


(ambigram courtesy John Langdon)
If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.


As a observer Einstein made it clear that the observable universe has ideas attached to it. The "Pretty girl and the hot stove analogy" was compelling to those of us who recognized the values we may attach to life. "The Gravity of the situation?" How narrow our view of the world is when we feel the world is lost?

But the hope and inspiration is, that the world has a bright future when we undertsand the implications of our views. Our involvement in the "toposense of reality? We are "part and parcel" of it?

So, should we talk about the components of Heaven and Hell( my philosophical discourse on the nature of consciousness?)? You have to understand the picture and the dynamical nature this universe can say about it's entropic valuation?

While I may have understood Omega, it didn't come to the nature it is by not including a geomtrical perspective about the nature of that same universe.

That's my point. It had to arise from a earlier time and the manifestation is the matter states we are defining in correlation to the entropic valuations.

While you see these as macro-characteristics and the relation to blackhole in 3d+time, the result is, a explanation of matter states in "macrostylistic beauty" we see in the events of the cosmo.

If such inclinations to drive the energy to a ever smaller defined circle, as it gets smaller "the difference is" not so indiscernable that the events of the "particle showers" created are matter states that arise form the energy that was used.

You see?:)

The Ceiling

The deeper implications of such a thought from perspective is focused upward? Yet such perspective can be made from other positions? So some minds were flexible? Others, were just engineers? ;)

Understanding other worlds came naturally to him. Perhaps it was an inevitable consequence of being the child of Japanese Americans. His parents, though born in California, spent World War II behind barbed wire, guarded by people with machine guns: incarcerated by their own country as enemy aliens. Afterwards his father worked as a gardener, his mother a maid: two of the few jobs that were available to Japanese Americans. Kaku grew up poor, but one of the family treats was to visit the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. It turned out to be the place of a childhood epiphany. Wondering in the way that only a child does, Kaku looked at the carp swimming in a weedy pond and imagined how they would not be able to conceive of other worlds. "A carp engineer would believe that was all there is; but a carp physicist would see the ripples on the surface and start thinking about unseen dimensions," Kaku told me, laying the first of many lashes on his token engineer.


The "ceiling" is the perspective of the carp, not the perspective of the "carp physicist."

See:

  • Liminocentric Structures: Which Circle do you Belong Too?-Sunday, July 10, 2005


  • Ps: Some updates are curvature given for perspective. Think of a string, and any point on that string. What does the energy value of "that point" tell you in regards to the circle? The point on that string. It's just a way of looking at the string and the resonantial value assign along the string's length?

    Friday, September 29, 2006

    Historical Approach of the Sand Reckoner

    I should pave the way for how the thoughts that are unfolding this morning.


    But nothing afflicted Marcellus so much as the death of Archimedes, who was then, as fate would have it, intent upon working out some problem by a diagram, and having fixed his mind alike and his eyes upon the subject of his speculation, he never noticed the incursion of the Romans, nor that the city was taken. In this transport of study and contemplation, a soldier, unexpectedly coming up to him, commanded him to follow to Marcellus; which he declining to do before he had worked out his problem to a demonstration, the soldier, enraged, drew his sword and ran him through. Others write that a Roman soldier, running upon him with a drawn sword, offered to kill him; and that Archimedes, looking back, earnestly besought him to hold his hand a little while, that he might not leave what he was then at work upon inconclusive and imperfect; but the soldier, nothing moved by his entreaty, instantly killed him. Others again relate that, as Archimedes was carrying to Marcellus mathematical instruments, dials, spheres, and angles, by which the magnitude of the sun might be measured to the sight, some soldiers seeing him, and thinking that he carried gold in a vessel, slew him. Certain it is that his death was very afflicting to Marcellus; and that Marcellus ever after regarded him that killed him as a murderer; and that he sought for his kindred and honored them with signal favors.


    First off, as Plato I understand "the secret" of the Building of the Pyramids. Why and what it means as a model of comprehension about the building blocks of nature.

    So "carefully think in conclusion" about what this post means as you near it's end. For I had much more to say about it philosophically, but that would be stepping ahead to "now." :)

    Anyway


    Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.


    A lot of people do not understand that if you look to the cosmo, you do not just look at what is evident from observation, but that your observation is increased, as you enhance your perceptions about the "real depth" of that universe.

    IN "LHC Factoids," presented by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance, some of the tantilizing ideas about the complexity of the information is being discussed. To me, this presents an opportune time to gain perspective from the "bottom up" discussed by Frank Wilczek .

    If the sand is melted into a lense or a diamond, what view had been established by Frank that you might say his lense "is" distorted? If you read the article you understand the context, but until then, what use any "mountain/pyramid to climb" if you did not understand the complexity of the information?



    Archimedes met an untimely death while deep in thought, pondering a figure he had drawn in the sand. He did not see the Roman soldier approach, sword in hand. The mosaic portrays this historical event


    About Dimension

    John Baez's link this morning in his comment is important for a lot of different angles... ummm... reasons?:)

    So when you are pointed towards the valuation of all these "sand particles," it not that you want to look like an "ostrich and bury your head in the sand," but that you want to retain perspective on the complexity of the "sand castles" that mathematicans like to build? So you tend to look for the technique concerning the point, breadth and width of the evolving statemntement of the projective geoemtries?


    A space is a collection of entities called points. Both terms are undefined but their relation is important: space is superordinate while point is subordinate. Our everyday notion of a point is that it is a position or location in a space that contains all the possible locations. Since everything doesn't happen in exactly the same place, we live in what can rightly be called a space, but points need not be point-like. Any kind of object can be a point. Other geometric objects, for instance, are totally acceptable (lines, planes, circles, ellipses, conic sections) as are algebraic entities (functions, variables, parameters, coefficients) or physical measurements (time, speed, temperature, index of refraction). Even so-called "real" things can be points in a space: people are points in the space of a nation's population, nations are points in the global political space, and telephones are points in the space of a telecommunications network.



    So of course you always start off with Euclidean perspective, and work from there. So, you have "one" grain of sand? One raindrop? One string? Okay, you get my point yet?

    The beginning of the Universe?

    I want people to realize where the strings fit in. I can't help but stress that such advances to "the cause" of what perception is necessary had to start off in a "avenue" like all things, this road leads to the universe we have today.



    Because it starts off in the analogy of "the string" makes this feature no less important then the "sargeant major" of Robert Laughlin's condense matter theorist view.

    See:


  • What are those Quantum Microstates-Tuesday, October 18, 2005


  • A Perspective on Powers of Ten?



  • Saturday, September 23, 2006

    Hydrogen, and the Law of Octaves



    Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One article by Mark of Cosmic Variance drew my interest again after reading with a new perspective gained from understandng some implications about the "anthropic principle."

    Sometimes I even still hold to the idea it is better not to touch this topic because of the greeness with which insight has now taken over. This greeness resides against the reason with which such logic is necessary in regards ot the debate between Susskind and Smolin.

    I do not want to be blinded by the razzle dazzle either of men leading this debate, so as to the layman's pursuite of understanding, I hope to show what I am seeing?

    While I have not read the book either I am still "drawn to the debate" about what the "anthropic reasoning" is talking about at a fundamental level? Scared yes, and on wobbly legs so I continue.

    So as a layman I am curious too ,about views here and what the basis could lead too, in terms of what our universe had become?

    If "carbon" wasn't present at the beginning, then how would you explain our universe?

    Because the triple-alpha process is unlikely, it requires a long period of time to produce carbon. One consequence of this is that no carbon was produced in the Big Bang because within minutes after the Big Bang, the temperature fell below that necessary for nuclear fusion.

    Ordinarily, the probability of the triple alpha process would be extremely small. However, the beryllium-8 ground state has almost exactly the energy of two alpha particles. In the second step, 8Be + 4He has almost exactly the energy of an excited state of 12C. These resonances greatly increase the probability that an incoming alpha particle will combine with beryllium-8 to form carbon. The existence of this resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle before its actual observation based on its necessity for carbon to be formed.


    I too hate the idea of the "law of crackpostism," yet research back to mendeleev table in regards to Newland, raised interesting ideas about the future of testbility?

    A "harmonical disseration" about the ways we will in the fuure be able to map the elements in "photonic imagery" devised to work within carbon processes?

    What were the ground rules for this universe?

    He is best known for discovering the element plutonium, with Edwin McMillan. He led the team that devised the chemical process for extraction of plutonium.

    Seaborg served as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 until 1971.

    He and McMillan shared the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research into transuranic elements.


    Having a framework here in which to establish the elemental nature of our universe, how is it that such principals inherent in "string theory" should not direct our attention to what is a viable indicator of what will fill the spaces between, as Mendeleev was able to do in prediction?

    While one has been introduce to the "allotopes of Coxeter," it is not without some thought that "planck length," along with the understanding of what "geometrical inhernetness?" qunatum geometry, would also spew forth from the very basis of the beginning of that big bang?

    So while I have shown the allotrope here, and dimensional perspective developed, what degrees of freedom say that the space would allow all constants of nature to be described here, and allowed such geometrical principals to form in the bucky ball of carbon, carbon nanotubes?

    It was not wihtout directing our attention to the immediacy of that big bang in the microsecond of "planck time" that we are at a loss then?


    The last major changes to the periodic table was done in the middle of the 20th Century. Glenn Seaborg is given the credit for it. Starting with his discovery of plutonium in 1940, he discovered all the transuranic elements from 94 to 102. He reconfigured the periodic table by placing the actinide series below the lanthanide series. In 1951, Seaborg was awarded the Noble prize in chemistry for his work. Element 106 has been named seaborgium (Sg) in his honor.


    See:

  • CNO and the Law of Octaves

  • Allotropes and the Ray of Creation
  • Friday, September 22, 2006

    What is Natural?


    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).


    The question I would pose to those who do not have the dynamical nature of the universe in mind, are you happy with what you are seeing? Is it enough that your measure will be in the value of Steven Weinberg's first three minutes?

    Becuase I have taken you down to the microseconds, we can now see of this uiverse, do you think it so unlikely that the very methods for blackhole dyamics would not have include thermodynamic realizations held in context of the issue brought forward by the introduction by Paul of the Conformal Field theory and the issues relate to Penrose?

    Of course I jump ahead, based on the current knowledge base I have been able to put together by reading, sharing ideas and learning. So "you see," and "I see" what?

    Gamma ray detection is just the beginning of the lesson behind deeper perceptions of our universe and it is in this way that you are taken to view the universe on a much more dynamical level.

    But wait, I don't talk lightly of Planck scale and the measure of the square box.

    Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form. Nature is the subject of scientific study. In scale, "nature" includes everything from the universal to the subatomic. This includes all things animal, plant, and mineral; all natural resources and events (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes)....en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature


    On to the Validity of the LHC

    I encounter a concept the other day that took me back some. If we intercede and experiment to find the fundamental working associated with "dynamcial thinking" then how could one actually do this, while holding a "cosmological view" to all that we are exposed too in the space, around earth, and beyond?

    So of course, while we are being treated to the vast views given to us by Hubble and all the satellites, how much more could we have been satisfied to say, "look at what we have accomplished?"

    That is enough for the cosmologist is it not?


    In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement defined in terms of universal physical constants in such a manner that some chosen physical constants take on the numerical value of one when expressed in terms of a particular set of natural units. Natural units are intended to elegantly simplify particular algebraic expressions appearing in physical law or to normalize some chosen physical quantities that are properties of universal elementary particles and that may be reasonably believed to be constant. However, what may be believed and forced to be constant in one system of natural units can very well be allowed or even assumed to vary in another natural unit system. Natural units are natural because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are often, without qualification, called "natural units" but are only one system of natural units among other systems. Planck units might be considered unique in that the set of units are not based on properties of any prototype, object, or particle but are based only on properties of free space.


    So as strange as it may seem "this concept" held in mind argues the validity of the LHC as a process that is "natural" as it is used to delve into the energies that allow us to see this "cascade of nature as particle manifestations. In this way, we have to support our views on what?

    So, we develope instruments to help us look to the very beginnings of creation? We talk about blackholes and we ask, "are these real?"

    Microstate Blackholes

    What gave us the ability to entertain such concepts that we again ask ourselves, "are these real?" All we had known is that Blackholes exist in nature? So the point I am making is that if you follow the natural costants, what use the microstate in, or as a valuation of what is real in cosmological association?

    If, as some suspect, the Universe contains invisible, extra dimensions, then cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere will produce tiny black holes. These black holes should be numerous enough for the observatory to detect, say Jonathan Feng and Alfred Shapere of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


    Fortunately while we were being occupied by the news of LHC and all the workers found busy there constructing, there were others who were very busy too. They were helping us see in ways that we were not accustom as well, in regards too, the cosmic particle collisions. Now what use this information if we had thought this avenue not fruitful and necessary?


    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.


    Lest the knowledge doesn't serve us then what will be the quest of LHC? What new route to be taken? And it is in this design of measure that we will see something more direct to the basis of what these energy valuations serve?

    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-John Ellis

    Sunday, September 10, 2006

    Window on the Universe

    Michio Kaku:
    I like to compare it to wandering in the desert, and stumbling over a tiny pebble. When we push away the sand, we find that this "pebble" is actually the tip of a gargantuan pyramid. After years of excavation, we find wondrous hieroglyphics, strange tunnels and secret passageways. Every time we think we are at the bottom stage, we find a stage below it. Finally, we think we are at the very bottom, and can see the doorway.

    One day, some bright, enterprising physicist, perhaps inspired by this article, will complete the theory, open the doorway, and use the power of pure thought to determine if string theory is a theory of everything, anything, or nothing.

    Only time will tell if Einstein was correct when he said, "But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."




    An Intermediate Polar Binary System. Credit & Copyright: Mark Garlick


    Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restrictied to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen.


    Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin

    Now you have to understand something here that the views of those who push our perceptions have gone even further then this, in how we look at the universe. I am showing you work that was progressing from understanding and bringing together what was going on then in 2004, to show you indeed that such an progression has taken place.

    I also point out where "Conformal Field Theory" has planted itself, as we look at the images of Bekenstein bound. Such determinations and the roads taken by Strominger point specifically to what we can measure and what we have yet to measure. This did nt relegate any theoretcial view to the "garbage dump" but allowed visionaries to see beyond the SUN/Earth relation in Lagrangian views.

    ISCAP will demonstratively help you "adjust your view" in a cosmological re-adjustment that is necessary. Not only from Glast views that arose from some fantasy, but culminates today in the use of a scientific device(calorimeter) for such measures.

    In Gamma Ray detection and the Early Universe I point the direction in how Glast in it's preparation has given us new views on how we look at the universe.

    Dust torus around a supermassive black hole
    The Astrophysical Journal, in an article titled "Integral IBIS Extragalactic survey: Active Galactic Nuclei Selected at 20-100 keV", by L. Bassani et al., published on 10 January 2006 (vol. 636, pp L65-L68).


    Meanwhile, the NASA team is now planning to extend his search for hidden black holes further out into the universe. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. In a few more months we will have a larger survey completed with the Swift mission. Our goal is to push this kind of observation deeper and deeper into the universe to see black hole activity at early epochs. That’s the next great challenge for X-ray and gamma-ray astronomers," concluded Beckmann.


    Sun Earth Relation

    Part of devloping this vision was to see in ways that the Grace satelitte allowed you to see. In what use "climate functions were happening" within the earth's atmosphere how it was being regarded. Time clock functiosn are necessary views, even within this context and such mapping allowed you to see th eearth as it had never been seen before.



    No longer is it the surprize of the "first man to step out in space" to see such a blue marble and be aw struck by it's beauty. Now we have progressed in the same views that I allude too beyound what glast has done. Glast is your measure for now. Mine, and others, excell beyond this. As I show you why.

    Dr. Mark Haskins:
    On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".


    Now how abtract these views that I will show you to think indeed "theoretcial surmize exists for the potential to push perception." Then, I will give you a real image to ponder, as satellites now progress through this superhighway.

    The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.


    In order to understand this sun/earth relation, you needed to see beyond what Glast had to impart to you. Yet, I do not say that it is irrelelavnt such experimental fashion to help us see even further. You understand this now?

    So now, I'll show you what the universe looks like.

    Diagram of the Lagrange Point gravitational forces associated with the Sun-Earth system. WMAP orbits around L2, which is about 1.5 million km from the Earth. Lagrange Points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of a two body system like the Sun and the Earth produce enhanced regions of attraction and repulsion. The forces at L2 tend to keep WMAP aligned on the Sun-Earth axis, but requires course correction to keep the spacecraft from moving toward or away from the Earth.


    Now having this perspective in place, I am telling you what this does for perception, had I not carefully taken you through the roads to discovery. What the scale for gravity does for us in our estimation of what that universe actually looks like, when you put on glasses that change the very ideas of how we see.

    While you may see refracting of the pencil in a glass of water, you may also see that the grvaiational relation is also apparent inhow we look at the universe?

    If you do not think about the force carrier of the gravity then such extension to the standard model will only hold so much for you, while others in vision had been extended far beyond what you are accustom.

    A Better Researcher, Not a Cynic...Yessss?:)

    Sometimes there are wiser words then my own, to show what is "healthy and happy" with the research into quantum gravity? "A cynic" needs to wipe the spit from their chin, while recogizing what is really going on? We want a well balanced approach.

    Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

    Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

    Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

    Monday, September 04, 2006

    Epic Voyage-The LHC Journey



    Couldn't help noticing Lubos's recent article on his blog Frame of Reference, called, "Epic Vessel." Now of course, if presented new opportunities to express ourselves. why does it have to be the way Lubos speaks, about vision being the sea of ignorance, and being limited only by our education?

    There is enough information out there now to tell us what preconcieved notions had postulated the means to verification, where now the man on the street may ask, what use this information?

    Is it wrong to "think ahead" gaining insight from all that has gone on before us, as we now wait patiently, as so many scientists wait to see, what new lands are discovered.

    Susskind, who also appeared in the media with his Strange But True description of the Planck temperature on Thursday, compares the current situation in physics to the late 15th century in which the Atlantic sea of ignorance - analogous to those 15 orders of magnitude of ignorance at the energy scale - became irresistable for curious adventurers.


    As soon as I seen this reference to Susskind, and the tile of the post by Lubos I was immediately reminded of John Ellis's article in Symmetry. Now, we have to pay for the article linked by Lubos, so hopefully we will find a way to see what words had been written by Susskind, by the inferences of others.

    Times Higher Education Supplement (subscription required) called, Hold fire! This epic vessel has only just set sail...

    Of course I recogize Lubos's poinst about the persecution of string/M theory, whilst the brave make their way, ahead of others as they build for the future some comprehensive understanding and means to investigate the New Reality?


    The Worldwide particle physics commuity is about to set sail on a voyage into a new world of discovery. The large Hadron Collider, a multi-billion-dollar that begins operations in Europe in 2007, will take us into new relams of energy, space time, and symmetry.

    Entering new territory like Christopher Columbus, we have good reasons to think that these new realms conatin"new physics"-a world beuond the Old World of Fundamental particles and forces. Like Columbus, we have expectations about where our journey made lead us. And like Columbus, we do not know how far away the New World may lie, an dour preconceptions may well be completely wrong.


    Now why this is of some interest is because of the way the thoughts are held to "maiden voyages", and in this sense, this voyage is a precursor to what we will find after a coniderable length of time, prepping for what the LHC is going to tell us.

    Tuesday, July 25, 2006

    Clifford and The Singularity

    Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole.


    See:

  • So how far back to the beginning, and if we had thought supersymmetry could exist, would it be in the most perfect fluid?

    I place this picture and article above so that one keeps perspective about the similarites of the "micro versus the macro" perspective and "not" that the "disaster scenario" could create the "large blackhole?" But wait?

    I am thinking in terms of what could create "the situations" for what is coming into being. Is it acummulative? I am not sure from the "many colldial events" that one could see happen? Hence my focus, to what not ony is created in the "collidal event," but to the cosmic particle colllsions as well. How rare are these? I speak on the "history of strangelets" from that point.

    Anyway onward here.

    Clifford:
    Seriously his talk is all about the physics of certain type of spacetime singularites-such as the one that live's in our universe's past-and whether life can make sense of the idea of space and time coming into being after sucha singualrity, while not existing prior to that


    I should start off from a quote of Clifford's of Cosmic Variance, becuase of Q's insistance in regards to the descritpions of singularities and my lacking an understanding and somewhat confusion. I thought I would do some more research here.

    There are "certain assumptions" I am making and this is in regard to the a statement Clifford makes, is held as a question in my mind of what exists before anything can emerge into the spacetime? While he has called this beginning "spacetime" and reference "another state" before this, what is it? This is what holds my assumption and idea about what the singularity is doing.

    Lubos Motl:
    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.)


    I place this, too support what Clifford is saying in regards to the what is emergent into the spacetime from what I understand(Strings as a building block on the road too, not as the source of this "emergent property?"). Where do all these dimensional ideas then reside? You can't ignore this, or what Lubos "is saying" about talking about the past? Everytime one's perception changes, the hisory changes too? It forces you to look at the future in a new way?

    Not Newtonian

    It is certainly not the Newtonian version I am thinking about. People tend to think of these as diamonds(?) or something like that as a Pea? I tend away from that thinking, because it just doesn't chive with what is tramsmitted into what "being [is] in spacetime?," if you don't have a foundation from which to work?

    Call them coordinates and in it, the spactime emerges, and from that "okay" the looking at the arrow of time which implies to me a simplier supersymmetrical idea, looking back. So how did you get there? The outside/inside "quandry that stretches the mind capbailites" while chasing the "idea" as Brian Greene's Koan?

    There is something to be said in how "ideas emerge from all the information gathered and accumulated" spontaneousily bursts into a new form? The mind goes through a bit of a change? See's differently. Reinmann accomplishement along with those of the geometrical forbears(shoulder's of giants) help to change how we see geometrics.

    Briefly I pick up the Kurzwelian book on singularities, and find that a greate rperspective is need beyond what is espoused. A new stage in the thinking, beyond what society is thought to be headed. Some reject Kuhnian thinking but this is revolutionary to bme in what an dhow th emind proceeds in bringing down to earh the ideas that await to form in mind. Another place perhaps? A way of dipping the "toe" into the stream, and letting all that "informtaion" flow through you?

    A black hole in astrophysics often has two distinct meanings. The first is the black hole in a general relativistic sense - the extreme gravitational case with a singularity in space-time - while the second is a simpler Newtonian approach: a black hole is just a point mass. While both of these meanings are used, often interchangeably, throughout the literature, it is important to remember that no astrophysical observation has yet been made that can distinguish between the two; to date, the Newtonian point mass is all we need. In the future, with better X-ray observations and a detection of gravitational waves, this may change.



    First off I wrote the post Singularities should be rewritten as "a question" of what I was seeing inregards to our universe. What is in our universe's past. The reason for it's inflation. The reason for entropic valuations that become complicated and end in some chaos reasoning that Sean askes of those to solve in the Three body solution? I think this ahas already been done from what I understood so that push me towards lagragian perspective s and the other assumptions I have about this beginning and what existed before it?

    Here's what I write:

    Plato:
    If the initial states at the beginning of the universe are to be in concert with particle reductionism, and the particle creations that I have exemplified in how particles came into being, then, the understanding of what can be transmitted through the blackhole is extremely important as a valuation of what appears over time?


    So I have to say yes I am quantum characteristically driven to see this universe as it existed in a state held in our perceptions, of what it has become today. So of course I was looking back, with new knowledge of what the futre is to become. Why shouldn't it matter what help to draive this situation in the universe we have to day not hold perspectove abot what has emerged in the spacrtime as we know it?

    Strominger:
    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.
  • Thursday, June 29, 2006

    Early Universe Formation

    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.


    I had been doing some reading and some thoughts came to mind about the measures one may use to see how our universe is doing. While it is really early here for any great revelation :) it did seem that issues could arise in my mind, if we used the "distance" to measure what exactly the universe is doing.

    A Determinism at Planck Scale?

    I'll tell you why in a second and then leave for now, as I have to continue with finishing the "foundation" with my son. Getting ready for backfilling tomorrow.



    Andrey Kravtsov's computer modelling comes to mind, and how I was percieving early universe modelling in terms of a supersymmetrical state of existance. Holding this very idea in terms of this whole universe, it seemed to me, that the very "dynamical situation" and rise from such motivations, would have revealled principles as inherent in how "GR" would arise from this beginning. If the 5d consideration ha dbeen reduced to the 4 spacertime coordinated frame of reference, then what use any supersymmetrical state, or the motivation for such universe expressions?

    Scientists have detected a flash of light from across the Galaxy so powerful that it bounced off the Moon and lit up the Earth's upper atmosphere. The flash was brighter than anything ever detected from beyond our Solar System and lasted over a tenth of a second. NASA and European satellites and many radio telescopes detected the flash and its aftermath on December 27, 2004. Two science teams report about this event at a special press event today at NASA headquarters


    So there are two issues here that in my mind which make measurement extremely difficult. Two events within each other, that reveal something acute about the closeness of the beginnings in the universe, as very closely mappped to what exists now in our views revealled in GRB events



    It was further complicated in my mind by two more issues that hold reference to these high energy events releases, that layout the schematics drawings, that the new WMAP indication holds in regards to analogistical sounds, revealled as the underpinnings of movement within this same universe.

    So what about the WMAP and it's current reveallings?

    If such equillibrium states are recognized as they are in placing detectors to position. Wouldn't this also reveal an opportune time for how we see this information, and provide for quick travel?

    How did these "holes" create a problem for me?

    If energy from these events found the "fastest route," then what would any lensing have looked like, effected by the very influences that the photon's travelled held, unduly holding to a fifth dimensional view?

    The universe may of then looked like a swiss cheese? :)

    Within conventional big bang cosmology, it has proven to be very difficult to understand why today's cosmological constant is so small. In this paper, we show that a cyclic model of the universe can naturally incorporate a dynamical mechanism that automatically relaxes the value of the cosmological constant, including contributions to the vacuum density at all energy scales. Because the relaxation time grows exponentially as the vacuum density decreases, nearly every volume of space spends an overwhelming majority of the time at the stage when the cosmological constant is small and positive, as observed today.


    Link for article above here. Paul Steinhardt's homepage here.

    If gravity and light are joined in the fifth dimension, what would this mean?

    Monday, June 12, 2006

    Harmonics will Color Your World?



    If you are a active participator of the very world around you, how is it, the makeup of high energy particle creations could not have included the standard model make up "harmonically described" does it not also apply to our "very thinking and conscious mind?" :)

    The Landscape “avant la lettre” by A.N. Schellekens

    The lowest harmonics correspond to the particles of the Standard Model, plus perhaps a few new particles. The higher harmonics correspond to an infinite series of particles that we can never observe, unless we can build a Planck Energy accelerator


    So of course the very basis of the thinking was drawn in my mind to the very subject enlisted by the minds of our predeccessors, to wonder, how this associative function could have ever been at the basis of how we may look at the World?

    Lee Smolin:
    In case it is not obvious, let me emphasize that harmonic oscillators are not relevent here, and can play no role in a background independent quantum theory, precisely because the division of a field into harmonic modes requires a fixed background metric. Thus, the physics of the problem REQUIRES an alternative quantization


    Of course it is never easy for me to understand what is going on while we have the issues of the background, versus, the non background, and this brings up the ole debates about positions and adoptives stances scientists have taken in regards to the "duality" of science's "quantum gravity" issues?



    Do I have a complete grasp of it. Absolutely not, while it forces me back to the issues, as to what is the basis of this "difference of opinion?"

    THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE


    Leonnard Susskind and Lee Smolin


    While this is a conversation written by physicists for physicists, it should nonetheless be of interest for Edge readers as it's in the context of previous Edge features with the authors, it's instructive as to how science is done, and it's a debate that clarifies, not detracts.

    So by historically looking back, this is a reminder, about the ways in which science people are still looking at things, while holding their positions of thought today?

    SEan's meeting at PI, is a very interesting one becuase what it does is take the teacher and student scenario, and manifests the circumstance of clarification as to positions, while providing for a intuitive surge to present itself in the minds of it's participnats.

    So this debate then was held and it's relationship rememebered within this blog as to the basis of determination, about how we see the universe and all that is in it.

    Lee Smolin:

    The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

    The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.


    So if someone saids that space is empty, I have a really hard time with it.

    See:

  • Quantum Harmonic Oscillator
  • 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?

    THE MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR DETERMINISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS by Gerard ’t Hooft

    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.

    See:

  • Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

  • Harmonic Oscillation

  • Warm Dark Matter

  • Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
  • Tuesday, April 04, 2006

    Strangelets Do Not Exist?

    I tried to follow the history as best I could, and the resulting worries earlier linked in extra links seen below, attest to the research that I followed. Can we safely say now, that strangelets do not exist?

    Quantum character of black holesby Adam D. Helfer
    Black holes are extreme manifestations of general relativity, so one might hope that exotic quantum effects would be amplified in their vicinities, perhaps providing clues to quantum gravity. The commonly accepted treatment of quantum corrections to the physics around the holes, however, has provided only limited encouragement of this hope. The predicted corrections have been minor (for macroscopic holes): weak fluxes of low-energy thermal radiation which hardly disturb the classical structures of the holes. Here, I argue that this accepted treatment must be substantially revised. I show that when interactions among fields are taken into account (they were largely neglected in the earlier work) the picture that is drawn is very different. Not only low-energy radiation but also ultra-energetic quanta are produced in the gravitationally collapsing region. The energies of these quanta grow exponentially quickly, so that by the time the hole can be said to have formed, they have passed the Planck scale, at which quantum gravity must become dominant. The vicinities of black holes are windows on quantum gravity.


    Having been holding onto the thoughts published by Peter Steinberg," Richard and Me how could I refuse to acknowledge that such strangelets might indeed not exist, having been given experimental verification as to procedures resulting in this Risk assessment consultation.

    The relations to cosmic correlations were drawn in my research, as I tried to understand what was going on in a everyday scenario, as we saw the elevation to cosmological colliders making the statements that they do.


    Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question RiskBy Carolyn Weaver

    “It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

    The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.


    So if I had thought for a moment about John Ellis's contributions to furthering the layman understanding, it was quickly understood that the energies involved had to have many events to conclude what may be happening on such a large scale, might be happening in the colliders. Quite simple really?

    Would it be so dangerous that such energy considerations required the work of Star to help ease fears with which the layman population could have turned into a frenzy of religious doomsday scenarios?

    Strangelet Search at RHICby STAR Collaboration

    We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.


    See:

  • Blackhole Creations

  • Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

  • Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

  • Microstate Blackhole Production

  • Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

  • Accretion Disks

  • Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

  • IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

  • What Are those Quantum Microstates
  • Thursday, March 23, 2006

    Modulating Phases States:Neural Correlates to Consciousness

    J. Metzinger Le Gouter/Teatime 1911

    Dynamical triangulation


    I added the wording below picture to encourage you to click on the picture. While discretization may have been thought endorsed, I still believe in continuity and flow, yet, I could not help think about how the mind is wanting to speak about that confined space, and the simplest discription of it. So in this sense, there are a lot of us asking what geoemtry/physics is involved in those spaces?

    Lets be kind to each other.

    I was just thinking about how, if I can so easily shift into the ways of non-euclidean realms, how perception had been changed from my current state of writing, how would I convey that?

    Classically Shifting Gears maybe?:)

    Such vast insight into how we see the universe with it's "analog in nature," sound was considered to extend our thinking by such relations, as well as, point to current WMAP data and the way it is being percieved. I introduce this here, in this blog after travelling through much information.

    But it is more then this, with which I have been enthralled about, how we see that situations arose, where my not getting the message across , had me think about what was going on. About the ways in which I like to be creative. Use words, in a multidimensional way, as to poke fun. I am not saying I have what Kandinsky has, but as I thought about it more, I wanted to undertand this creativity, as well as, what the seed bed of each of our experience might manifest to the way it would in our role in who we today.

    A High School Tutorial

    Something to consider before we move into todays world of science. How I am seeing the data:)



    While some of what I might be saying has been relegated to our senses, I would take it further, in that model apprehensions could , and do change current life positions, about which future possibilties arise.

    We know this intellectually is a simple assertion about all life and it's changes, that from day to day, new insight, would make the new tomorrow very different.

    Signs within Society

    Can I say, that peppered throughout society, that the adventurous in science, could have been attributed with skills that could vary according to the modulation states of the mind, with which it had been gifted?

    That it would know no race, gender, and human being that what ever the conditon, such skills applied, will be creativitly used in developing science alongs it's routes. Along what ever road it took in life.



    IN the one sense "gifted with" might have implied a "given ability" as is the case in Kandinsky's, while in other's I see those whose same wirings had "crossed paths" and created such points, as modulation of the thinking brain. Ths is not held to any one person. Yet if you were to take the "senses away" would imagery have still be functionable in the mind?

    In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings.
    In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in string theory are floating in spacetime, they aren't tied down to a guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a'), where a' is pronounced "alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string length scale.


    This is a bold idea I am stating in conjunction with how deveopement is taking place in science, and wondering about, as, "sign's of creativity."

    Wonder about what is hidding behind the "facades" we had built up in our lives. That a truer seedbed existed, for life to be expressed in you. You, are the modulator.

    Phase shifting(wikipedia 23 Feb 2006)

    Phase shifting describes relative phase shift in superposing waves. Waves may be of electromagnetic (light, RF), acoustic (sound) or other nature. By superposing waves using different phase shifts the waves can add (0° shift = "in phase") or cancel out each other (180°). A modulation of the relative phaseshift while superposing waves thus causes an amplitude modulation.


    There are so many things that I am trying to bring together from what I see, it is very hard without all the science undertsood ,to the degree that any consistent picture sould ever come forth. The picture(yet fuzzy and foggy) is there, and it holds ideas about holography, about the map of the universe supplied, and it's phase changes. Also that such an idea would have been held in relation to a "troubled mind" who might be exposed to Kandinsky's troubles, or, how society had been changed in a way, by such ideas being put forth in modulation idealizations.

    I won't lie to you here, my mind is whirling with all these things in relation to how we are developing along in society as well as what is taking place in our universe. Such a large contrast to each other for sure. Almost like saying the microperspective view had some relation to evidence int he cosmo as we know it today.

    I know it is not that easy, and the whole story about uncertainty, is really a baffling one to me. Yet, for some strange reason in face of this uncertainty there seems to be ways in which we can speak abstractually about the effects on the horizon issues, in relation to conformal theories.

    So how would such transformative changes allow us to speak to what might be happening inside that blackhole would be as challenging as describing the length measures and what signal planck length according to some time clock measure? Yes i understand that this is important because the limits had been set as to what point quantum gravity effects come into play. How fine our measure that we can know the depth of dynamical situations.

    See:

    Links Philosophical and Conjectural?

  • More on Wassily Kandinsky

  • "Wholeness and Creativity" under the Guise of Synesthesia

  • Books for the Dead are Really, Books for Life?

  • Mendeleev's Table in a New Light


  • Links to More Speculated Science?

  • Ways IN which To Percieve Landscape?

  • If it's Not a Soccer Ball, What is it?

  • Singing Bowl