Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Color Glass Condensate

A Second Chance?

Just so that I undertsood this part, intuitive recognition and short requirements previews, had me wonder about how I am proceeding? If as a layman I could not voice what was inherent in the process, did I lack sufficient credibility?

I understand that.

I once heard that a mechanic will on the sake of profession and support of colleagues, not tolerate opinion about another of profession without having the sufficient rank. "So and so did this and," I understand that too.

I know we are talking about the valuation of supersymmetry? Had we not recognized the value it serves in experimental process? Then how would such relations not have been embedded in "thought processes" which serve to catelyst thinking to ideas about "communication viabilties?" A gravitational wave generated that would tell us something about how this early geoemtrical design was initiated?

What made one not think that such phenomena would not have been incurred in galaxy rotational designs, that lead to states of consideration held in the Crab Cake design of Cosmic Variance, to not have seen the uses of early universe design as feasible structures within the context of the global universe?

On Physics Watch

Kapusta points out that the condensation temperature would be well below the cosmic background temperature, so it would be quite a feat to make this superfluid. However, Kapusta also notes that a sufficiently advanced civilization might use pulses of neutrino superfluid for long-distance communications.

So what value does such thinking take hold of our imagnation not to have understood that if saw in a particle collisions in landscape design and relevance, then what made such landscape possibilites seen from a particluar light called supersymmetry?

This was a guiding principal was it not that had accomplished soemthing tangible in what began as a theoretcial idealization, and moved through thinking and design to have culminated in further thought patterns? It moved from the concrete?:)

So what is a color glass condensate? According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, when a nucleus travels at near-light (relativistic) speed, it flattens like a pancake in its direction of motion. Also, the high energy of an accelerated nucleus may cause it to spawn a large number of gluons, the particles that hold together its quarks. These factors--relativistic effects and the proliferation of gluons--may transform a spherelike nucleus into a flattened "wall" made mostly of gluons. This wall, 50-1000 times more dense than ordinary nuclei, is the CGC (see Brookhaven page for a letter-by-letter explanation of the CGC's name). How does the gluon glass relate to the much sought quark-gluon plasma? The QGP might get formed when two CGC's collide.


Monday, December 05, 2005

Bumblebee Wing Rotations and Dancing

The Bumble Be, Mentality

So what is the Gluon that binds?:)

For introduction sake, I might have deviated from Sean Carroll's ideas about the, "what science doesn't know" and traded it for mechanical systems interpretations, and the way we can write comprehension forms from such patterns inherent?

It always comes down to the lesson of a Beautiful mind? It's struggle for freedom from the illusions that we might perpetuate. The escape from, those delusions, to concrete analysis of such systemic thought patterns within human nature. The triumph and freedom, to overcome all odds?

If we thought of Belt rotations and Greg Egan, it wouldn't be to hard to place some perspective on how Sean might have intepreted the "wing rotation of slowed photography," and said, "hey, here is this pattern, and something a string theorist could hang their hat on?"

Satisfactory conclusion to rotations, that equatively reach across and touch us like E=mc2 does, then what's the point of concluding any thoughts if this consistancy can't be accomplished? So herein lies my inexperience, and the last recursive thought of, "okay, what science doesn't know, I scream?" :) Was it emotive enough to make my point?

And so in reference to string theory work, I couldn't help but think of the rotations, waiters and table trays and such. But it also made me think of the inroads to observation of nature and flight? Wilbur and Orville Wright as well?

But looking deeper, and from what one could gain from such observations, did I miss Sean's point?

Kosmopolis 05

Marc D. Hauser:
We know that that kind of information is encoded in the signal because people in Denmark have created a robotic honey bee that you can plop in the middle of a colony, programmed to dance in a certain way, and the hive members will actually follow the information precisely to that location. Researchers have been able to understand the information processing system to this level, and consequently, can actually transmit it through the robot to other members of the hive.

But it's more then the honey bee mentality. It's about communications systems we use to explain? So am I going to get Sean's goat on this one, and reverberate something he does not like? :)

But we know relatively little about how the circuitry of the brain represents the consonants and vowels. The chasm between the neurosciences today and understanding representations like language is very wide. It's a delusion that we are going to get close to that any time soon. We've gotten almost nowhere in how the bee's brain represents the simplicity of the dance language. Although any good biologist, after several hours of observation, can predict accurately where the bee is going, we currently have no understanding of how the brain actually performs that computation.

So I have in essence percieved the "Bee HIve Mentality of string theory" as a underlying causation, that if held too, becomes, "how little we really know." What ha/ormonial( I like to play with words?) factor, drives that body/system?

I bet that sounds like chalk board screeching to him:) Yes I gave the anti-string/M theorist more ammunition.

I also opened the door to another thought of mine. About the uses of, "Math and the foundations." But this is just me, trying to break down the reistance to mathematical prowness, that any other mathematician might try and hide, as a model of strng theory/M intepretation.

You can't just sweep it under the rug kind of thing and say what science doesn't know. Has yet to be proved?:) Oops, I extended the board screeching to include, the extension of, and Modifications to GR. I can't help it. The power of the "force" is really string?

The Cosmological Constant and the Vacuum Energy

Jacque Distler:
The cosmological constant is not “predicted” to be Planck scale, simply because, in a QFT context, it is not predicted at all. It is a renormalized coupling and can have any value whatsoever.

What is true is that, in order to achieve the observed value at low energies, the bare value (at the cutoff scale, which we might take to be the Planck scale) must be fine-tuned to enormous accuracy.

But that’s not the same thing at all as saying that the value of the cosmological constant is predicted, and that the prediction comes out wrong.

Jacques Distler has volunteered(?) for the sake of people like myself by opening the doors to clarity issues around the interrpetation of the cosmological constant.

So this leads to the second part of Sean's post that gets me to thinking about how perception might have been revealled in the dynamics scenario of Omega (w) and how we see that the background as a "energy density," can ever be seen as zero? That such a valuation would limit one to thinking that such a dynamical universe had to explain the nature of the curvature parameters beyond, what was comsologically understood?

The Friedmann equation which models the expanding universe has a parameter k called the curvature parameter which is indicative of the rate of expansion and whether or not that expansion rate is increasing or decreasing. If k=0 then the density is equal to a critical value at which the universe will expand forever at a decreasing rate. This is often referred to as the Einstein-de Sitter universe in recognition of their work in modeling it. This k=0 condition can be used to express the critical density in terms of the present value of the Hubble parameter.

For k>0 the density is high enough that the gravitational attraction will eventually stop the expansion and it will collapse backward to a "big crunch". This kind of universe is described as being a closed universe, or a gravitationally bound universe. For k<0 the universe expands forever, there not being sufficient density for gravitational attraction to stop the expansion.

So on a csomological level we get this sense of curvature and here to further exploit this understanding the means to such equations supplied for this endeavor.

Now for the vacuum to be define here in a planck scale valuation, it was not important for me, (okay maybe it is needed) to see the positive and negative effect of what and how the universe was doing at any particular stage. I always saw it as expanding, yet within the confines of the universe, it had the capability of doing galaxy dynamics, that would lead to greater intensities, expansive and contraction features, when we looked at the energy and matter cyclical valutions, in a geometrical sense, wrapped as "global" cosmological constant.

Bumble Bee Economics

See what happens when the creative juices are added to imagery and analogy gives insight from another perspectve?

Ed Hessler added this to the comment section of Cosmic Variance.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

General Relativity

I took GR because I thought Neil Turok was dreeeamy.

Well I dunno? He certainly got me thinking about brane world collisions, along with steinhardt, that’s for sure. We are most certainly dealing with a cosmological placement here with General relativity, but has been extended, as we look at string/M theoretical successes.

You had to make "certain assumptions I know" in order to get here in the picture, and you had to have some inkling of what gravitational waves were and how they were transmitted.

Completed 720 degree rotations, as "tidbits" of the process which are given to us from a cosmological standpoint.

So what is transmitted in the bulk in terms of "gravitational lensing" has some relation, to what we see in the picture above. Look at the placement of the gravitons in bulk perspective and how they are concentrated on and around the brane.

So it is not without reason that we see bulk perspective as a extension and not scientifically up to the challenege because Peter Woit say so?

Modifications to General Relativity

So "six weeks" we should have known something by now with respect to below statements? Jo-Anne, of cosmic varaince selected this answer next to the Pioneer Anomalie.

Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Please don’t get too excited yet about rumors concerning the Eot-Wash test of the 1/r^2 law. We can exclude gravitational strength (|alpha|=1) Yukawa violations of the 1/r^2 law for lambda>80 microns at 95% confidence. It is true that we are seeing an anomaly at shorter length scales but we have to show first that the anomaly is not some experimental artifact. Then, if it holds up, we have to check if the anomaly is due to new fundamental physics or to some subtle electromagnetic effect that penetrates our conducting shield. We are now checking for experimental artifacts by making a small change to our apparatus that causes a big change in the Newtonian signal but should have essentially no effect on a short-range anomaly. Then we will replace our molybdenum detector ring with an aluminum one. This will reduce any signal from interactions coupled to mass, but will have little effect on subtle electromagnetic backgrounds. These experiments are tricky and measure very small forces. It takes time to get them right. We will not be able to say anything definite about the anomaly for several months at least.

As stated maybe this "anomalie" might be significant and for scientists it is necessary such a quirk of nature be seen and understood. I relayed Einstein's early youth and the compass for a more introspective feature that such anomalies present.

The Eotwash Group is a sign of relief, for the speculative signs attributed from other scientists, made this topic of extra-dimensions unbearable and unfit for the general outlay for scientists who did not understand this themselves.

Deviations from Newton's law seen?

So what does Lubos have to say about this in his column?

Lubos Motl:
The most careful and respected experimental group in its field which resides at University of Washington - Eric Adelberger et al. - seems to have detected deviations from Newton's gravitational law at distances slightly below 100 microns at the "4 sigma" confidence level. Because they are so careful and the implied assertion would be revolutionary (or, alternatively, looking spectacularly dumb), they intend to increase the effect to "8 sigma" or so and construct different and complementary experiments to test the same effect which could take a year or two (or more...) before the paper is published. You know, there are many things such as the van der Waals forces and other, possibly unexpected, condensed-matter related effects that become important at the multi-micron scales and should be separated from the rest.

On Relativity again

According to General Relativity, the key qualities of strong sources of gravitational waves are that they be non-spherical, dynamic (i.e. change their behavior with time), and possess large amounts of mass moving at high velocities. So prime suspects should exhibit one or more of the following characteristics.

  • 1. Spinning

  • 2. Mass tranfer

  • 3. Collpase

  • 4. Explosion

  • 5. Collision

  • As to “online resources” for General Relativity, is there one preference if you do not have access to the Hartle book or the other?

    Lecture Notes on General Relativity, by Sean Carroll

    These lectures represent an introductory graduate course in general relativity, both its foundations and applications. They are a lightly edited version of notes I handed out while teaching Physics 8.962, the graduate course in GR at MIT, during the Spring of 1996. Although they are appropriately called \lecture notes”, the level of detail is fairly high, either including all necessary steps or leaving gaps that can readily be filled in by the reader. Nevertheless, there are various ways in which these notes differ from a textbook; most importantly, they are not organized into short sections that can be approached in various orders, but are meant to be gone through from start to finish. A special effort has been made to maintain a conversational tone, in an attempt to go slightly beyond the bare results themselves and into the context in which they belong

    Or a link to this one for a historical look?

    The Special and General Theory

    Wednesday, November 30, 2005

    What First principle was-- was it the geometry

    I thought I would contrast this quote of Dirac's with the one of Feynman's.

    You see the very idea of a constancy that spread through all Maxwell's equations was a necessary one which allowed Einstein to move into positive and negative valuations within the geometries? So did Dirac know how this was to be approached?

    When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

    ‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on Physics, v3, c18, p2.

    Paul Dirac Talk: Projective Geometry, Origin of Quantum Equations Audio recording made by John B. Hart, Boston University, October 30, 1972

    The quote below is in response to Dirac's comments


    "One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER]...is the fact that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and because of the general way in which things at that time had to be explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him. Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps. This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."

    So the question might have been, how this was viewed and what the result was through such a axiomization? What was the first principe here? Was there one that became the guiding principal?

    I mentioned the compass for Einstein, as a modelled perception that grew into the later years, but here, we might have seen the beginnings Feynmans toys model for such geometries?

    Monday, November 28, 2005

    Foundations of Mathematic

    Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beautya beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
    --BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

    In a Question below, is it worth it, to look at the context of what groups who gather might spark to the rest of society(click on it)? Look at what it has done for myself, and the reasons why such inductive/deductive features seem to be a part of the origins of cognitive functions that mathematically display itself?

    Is there a theme in this regard through my blog that I had questioned earlier and links brought forth to raise awareness of what might have been implied in that true "consciousness sense" about the very nature of our involvement in the nature of reality?

    But then too, awareness, about the death of such sensations. This is most troubling to me, if such model consumptions had made this impression then what had happened to the views as they exploded into the other realms? Other Realms? Why would I introduce Thales as a culminative vision about what could emerge and the father of geometry? Models make our view culmnative and increase the vision capabilites. Is there no one here that see differently after they had crossed a page to find that in our new tomorrows we see reality a little different now?

    You have been touched at a most deep level, that goes beyond the death of such sensations as Toposense, or momentums of curvatures. A microscopic eye now, to the quantum nature, right next to your reading from this screen. It's in the air all around you, this potential? :)

    Mathematics(logic?) and experiment?

    I respond in that thread, and although it would seems disjointed from the rest of the commentaries, I thought I was talking directly to Sean's opening post. So I have linked the post on the very title as I have done with previous entires, as they have been setting the pace for my thinking about what views they share and what safety net is placed out there for us lay readers.

    Would this impede my question as to the relation of philosphy in Sean's opening statement, to find that it had found a trail that leads to reasons why funding and perspective on it, should be thought about most carefully. Held in the esteem, with which one's adventures in physics and mathematics might have benefited society?

    I understand this need for determination, and as well, the need to reaffirm what philosophy might hold in regards to truly active memebers of the science community and the projects they are engaged in. Would they have a distain for the philosophy of mathematics?

    I left a question mark out there, and this question although never answered did see some slight comment in relation to the philosophy that where such logic might have gained in relation, being mentioned. I'll have to explain this some more so you understand that I am working hard to make sense of what is out there and viewed, whether in the tabloids, or what ever generalizations made by mathematicians, or the physicist who looks that little bit further.

    Shall I quickly respond to the thread commetary or should I continue? I thnk it important that I respond to the comments rasied but I'll do this after by highlighting the area that spoke to me in relation to this train of thought.

    I linked a quote from Plato on the idea of philosophy in my comment. I wil be moving from that position.

    Philosophy of Mathematics

    Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.
    The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

    Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

    You have to understand that although I am deficient in the math skills many have, it is not without effort that I am enaging myself in what appears to be beautiful and simplistic design when completed as a model. When we look at what the Wunderkammern had to offer in a revitalizing and dusting off of, models that were concretized for us. Did they lanquish until they were refurbished to the museums of time, so that we may again look at what mathematics has accomplished for us. In ways, that are very abstract and beautiful? What then exist as you gazed into the magnetic field, the dynamcis of brane held issues and the exemplification of design in those branes? It had to follow consistent and progressive developement in the physics of.

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner

    The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess. However, this is not our present subject. The principal point which will have to be recalled later is that the mathematician could formulate only a handful of interesting theorems without defining concepts beyond those contained in the axioms and that the concepts outside those contained in the axioms are defined with a view of permitting ingenious logical operations which appeal to our aesthetic sense both as operations and also in their results of great generality and simplicity.

    [3 M. Polanyi, in his Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago
    Press, 1958), says: "All these difficulties are but consequences of our
    refusal to see that mathematics cannot be defined without acknowledging
    its most obvious feature: namely, that it is interesting" (p 188).]

    Social constructivism or social realism

    Now here is the part, that while I saw the devloping nature of the tread of thinking and comments how would I answer and stay in tune? I previously spoke of John Nash and the inherent nature of mathematics as it could pierce the bargaining process, that to have this moved t a dynamcial social and constructive pallette developed in the ongoing relations of nations, why would such a scoial construct not be recognized as to the direction and strength of what mathematics might mean from a cognitive and developing brain that we have.

    This theory sees mathematics primarily as a social construct, as a product of culture, subject to correction and change. Like the other sciences, mathematics is viewed as an empirical endeavor whose results are constantly compared to 'reality' and may be discarded if they don't agree with observation or prove pointless. The direction of mathematical research is dictated by the fashions of the social group performing it or by the needs of the society financing it. However, although such external forces may change the direction of some mathematical research, there are strong internal constraints (the mathematical traditions, methods, problems, meanings and values into which mathematicians are enculturated) that work to conserve the historically defined discipline.

    This runs counter to the traditional beliefs of working mathematicians, that mathematics is somehow pure or objective. But social constructivists argue that mathematics is in fact grounded by much uncertainty: as mathematical practice evolves, the status of previous mathematics is cast into doubt, and is corrected to the degree it is required or desired by the current Mathematical Community. This can be seen in the development of analysis from reexamination of the calculus of Leibniz and Newton. They argue further that finished mathematics is often accorded too much status, and folk mathematics not enough, due to an over-belief in axiomatic proof and peer review as practices.

    This gets very comlicated for me. Yet I recognize the inhernet pattern at the basis of these negotiatons and the games involved. More to follow, and short on time.

    Saturday, November 26, 2005

    Aristotle and the Logic of the Natural World

    Aristotle's logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. It did not always hold this position: in the Hellenistic period, Stoic logic, and in particular the work of Chrysippus, was much more celebrated. However, in later antiquity, following the work of Aristotelian Commentators, Aristotle's logic became dominant, and Aristotelian logic was what was transmitted to the Arabic and the Latin medieval traditions, while the works of Chrysippus have not survived.

    First and formost one should be drawn to the very highlighted statement emblazoned at the top of this blog.

    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"

    I have to move quick forward here and reveal why the thinking is quite intense in terms of what such logic would have been revealling by "looking around you at what is." While I recognize this basis implanted in the natural world, such divisions arises from what had already existed. What we could accesss, as tangible realities of the ideas around us. "From whence they come?"

    So maybe a list of the maths involved so far? If we can wrap these maths then what had we done from the perspective of the natural world? Would such creation of a new math help here?:) I have an idea, but all that thngs that currently exist and that will exist are already here. We just have to access them right? So what would support such adventures froma philosophy that had endured to realites of the natural process from the logic of a math? What math would this be?:)

  • Algebra

  • Geometry

  • Trigonometry

  • Calculus (single variable)

  • Analytic Geometry

  • Linear Algebra

  • Ordinary Differential Equations

  • Partial Differential Equations

  • Methods of approximation

  • Probability and statistics

  • Real analysis

  • Complex analysis

  • Group theory

  • Differential geometry

  • Lie groups

  • Differential forms

  • Homology

  • Cohomology

  • Homotopy

  • Fiber bundles

  • Characteristic classes

  • Index theorems

  • Supersymmetry and supergravity

  • K-theory

  • Noncommutative geometry (NCG for short)

  • So the idea is that Plato and Aristotle stand together, as a basis of what is happening in our world now. Between those of science and the resulting needs for experimentation. The roads to lead from the underlying avenues of philosophical thought, that would include math develoepment.

    Now how is this possible you ask? How is it possible such logic coud have been so revealling of nature that we would strive to find it's meaning in patterns underlying the nature of this reality, are actually abstract rules of engagement, that had been developed through philosophical thought? How so?

    If we look at the number of mayh creations what uses are these when moved into the basis is of the natural world? Would you not think these modes of thinking would be tempered by such logic, that math would find it's birthing as to the need for such expressions from this natural world?

    So part of the realization is that the creation of the math had to have already existed in the forms of natures response, and that such access gained to these ideas, are worth noting as a means to what already existed in nature. That is my logic:)


    So is there a method to the madness of all these tidbits of information that would wrap all of this in a easy way to divine the logic of the natural world? Is it beyond comprehension? I don't believe so, or why would I waste my time as a lay person, to move into this world of a higher standard of abstract thought and developing sciences, to wonder about the origins of the nature of this reality and the cosmolgical equivalent of asking what happened in that beginning of creation?

    Would it be so subtle that such logic woud have been driven to ask where this beginning was, and what roads had currently lead all these minds to this very question.

    Some act very safe, and walk safe ground, by what methods are currently tangible in our assessments, while other are quite adventurous. Some ask, that you stay in line, with current experimentation or suffer the wrath of deriving illusionary tales of ideas, that had not matured yet, as to the feasibility to what will express this logic of the natural world.

    Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"

    So mine is a simple philosophy, that holds complex variables. A simple painting, that holds a thuosand words?:) To me Math is like that, yet I am deficient in all the logic it had to bear down on the natural processes in this world. While my collegues are simple folk, I recognized the diversity of that group that Lubos and Clifford belong too. This is the origins of my statement. I understand as well, about the crackpostism that follows aether rejuvenation, yet I see the graviton as a member of that spacetime fabric.

    Is this enough to speak on the creation and fabrications we like to embue to that natural world? Is it enough to understand these concepts, and find such roads leading too, are the very fringes of what is known and came from a brighter light that shines from behind us, to those shadows on the wall?

    Friday, November 25, 2005

    Charlatan's Who Use Graviton?

    Are Gravity people Charlatan's?:)I certainly don't think so.:)

    well this is a good perspective with which one could move forward and explain it for us lay people here? :)

    Lubos Motl:
    The graviton is, on the contrary, an example of a correct derivation from semiclassical gravity - a legitimate approximate unification of GR and QM. Its existence follows from the theories we have, even given some degree of ignorance of quantum gravity at higher energies, and at the semiclassical level, it is absolutely analogous to the photon.

    The only difference is the value of the spin, the geometric interpretation of the graviton, and ultraviolet divergences from loops.

    I might have had wrong ideas here about what the graviton as a force carrier "proposed?" To exemplified what gravity is...as a further extension of the theory of general relativity? Lubos sets it straight then on such joinings.

    This is the crucial difference between the dark energy and modified gravity hypothesis, since, by the former, no observable deviation is predicted at short distances," Dvali says. "Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects, and the leakage opens up a huge number of multidimensional detours, which bring about a change in the law of gravity."

    Dvali adds that the impact of modified gravity is able to be tested by experiments other than the large distance cosmological observations. One example is the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment that monitors the lunar orbit with an extraordinary precision by shooting the lasers to the moon and detecting the reflected beam. The beam is reflected by retro-reflecting mirrors originally placed on the lunar surface by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission.

    I myself might find it nice to have the origins of how this graviton came about. How one might be mistaken to have seen the bulk as a teaming with them(blackholes?), and such congregations telling, about places stronger then, while others are weaker.

    How telling is the photon as it travels through these spaces? What was the initial trigger that set things free as Hawking radiation? Some analogies there to consider as well:)

    So it would be nice then if one could find analogies that would sit well and sink deep. You know that the general public likes to think easy, and not finding relevant all the dressings of mathematical explanations. Or do they?

    Is it wrong to move so far ahead theoretically to be called a charlatan, by those who recognized the limitiations of experimentally proving it?

    Thursday, November 24, 2005

    The 5th Dimension and the Networld

    Hi Darwin,

    You thought my statement foolish, about Immanuel Kant?

    Instead of Darwin I thought maybe you might envision yourself as Aristotle, as you stand beside me, under the "arche.":)

    That what religion does is build concrete things, and so to models, for apprehension. If you stand and look at the room, why would I ever direct you to the picture on the wall? You have to draw back and take in a wider picure of what you see of Plato?:)

    To them, I said,
    the truth would be literally nothing
    but the shadows of the images.

    -Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

    Gerard t'Hooft, as well as Heisenberg, used comparative views establish from the Dialogues. These things were taken into the schools of learning.

    So by your reasoning, condensed matter physicists would be really happy to just deal with matter principles(whatever the building blocks of matter are?)The bottom up approach, while holography by philosophical attachment, should become irrelevant while we discuss the dimensional significance of where we are now in the networld?:)

    I am a student and learning, please be kind.:)

    Unity of disparate Pieces

    Even if you take the string theorists viewpoint that the energy may “leak” away into a brane instead of actually disappearing I think I’m correct in saying that you still need to ensure that energy is conserved regardless.

    Plato:While some might of thought it "dreamy," there is a direct physics correlation to that leaking in the collider. Although it is encompassed, like you said.

    So where did it go, and how is "it" encompassed?

    understanding the unity of disparate natural phenomena.

    So some people tried to form "new models" to help extend the way perceptions in science have always existed?

    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.

    While there was "particle states" to consider in terms of fermionic realizations, there was bosonic(force) interpretations that arose as well?

    If such states were considered in the colliders, then, what valuation would have seen the extension of what is leaking to have been encompassed? Here the onion signatures are relevant.

    Bulk Perceptions?

    While the "brane features" seem to answer this, what moved the ideas of bosonic interpetations as features beyond the colliders? This all had to make sense to me. So the history of the expansion of processes, have been altered much as you would look at sound? Gia's example of hitting metal plates, to sound created when billiard balls collide, to exemeplfy a greater understanding of what theoretics is doing here?

    Sound in relation to collision had a effect? It was this effect beyond the brane that was considered.

    How could such thinking have lead to such abstractions and analogies if the theoretics had not be connected in the consistancies that are required of science?

    As Maxwell equations were encompassing. As Einsteins theory of gravity was encompassing. By this methodology what came next? You has to understand this "tree of expression," in the modes of this thinking society "branched" to followed a format?

    Time-Variable Gravity Measurements

    As well as, the expansion capabilities of our brains?:) Osmosis, would have greater impact then:) From the ground up, as this tree grew? :)

    Wednesday, November 23, 2005

    Developement of Disbelief

    As you read, hold on to the thought about stringy/M theory developement.

    Richard Denton:
    I discovered that it was simply philosophy on its own that had played the very much larger role in the gradual erosion of belief.

    This is a interesting statement to me since some scientists might think that to have even included this in our "developing perspective" might have showed immediate signs of weakness? Evil?

    As if, math came out of all natural things, on it's own?

    So how did such views change us if we did not think about them more critically?

    See, I am not sure I like to think that there is "no God" that can be substitued by taking this power of belief outside of ourselves to religions and institutions. Crippling us, as to the empowerment we have for such changes in our own life?

    While we had seen the topic of "stringevangelism" introduced, there wasn't this concerted effort to make string as a all empowering "theory of everything( what underlying reality was referred too?)", even though, some would try to "invoke" these Godly powers of discrimmination. As a facist group, that would censor any views contrary to their own, as to what seemed, "stringevangelistic?" :)

    It then became the same institution, that it despises? Some might know who I mean here. If I stood up to it, could I change reality as well, as to that this group invokes into society?

    Anyway while I used Jo-Annes thread, "A little Bit of Heaven," to highlight this quality of earthly senses?


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

    I sought to internalize Gr's momentums, with Mecuries orbital patterns, or Hulse and Taylors expanding awareness of other things(gravity). I started to ask myself if this internalization was wrong? Is Topo-sense wrong? As too, intuitive unfoldments of the subject, in regards to Genus figures(holes)? Would it perish too? Revelations, leading to maths used?

    Internal developement would have revealled a greater core depth of the realities around us. Which are highly abstract, yet, could have lead to insight and convictions held in astronomy happenings in the cosmo(isomorphic relations?)? So this internalization developed conviction, with the basis of Gr's valuation of quantum mechanical things, to cosmological proportions?

    Strings as a model then, that could lead to perspectives with "langangian valuations" not only in terms of supersymmetry(concentration of a all pervading "beginning" that we could resort too,) as I espoused in Andrey Kravtsov computer's model.

    That such relations in our philosophical orientation of physics would endure in measure, culminate with "fineness" and valuations of gravity perspectives. Could you do this, without some model?

    So, would the "counter of belief in God," be the lesson the valuation of what one holds by introducing atheistic valautions, AS TO ROADS LEADING TO "COMMON SENSE?"

    While I used stringy comparison for examination, this leads back again to what models can be used to keep the human beings empowered, without stealing this away from them by such institutionalizations? Continued reflection, thwarted, as to no experimental valuations yet philosphically introduced. You remember the opening statement I used?

    I thought about the choices we make then, and the convictions we have. Would this have been irrelevant in our assessments of our own characters? After all, it would be you who walked back into society to think about the Smolins and Susskinds who would debate the essence of the backgrond?? What is understood, and what stringy needs to do?