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.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/669.html
Thanks for discussing he observations of special relativity and gluons. May I remind you that special relativity is a flat earth theory, as it can't deal with accelerations (absolute motion), and that gluons haven't been observed - which is just as well since it is not clear how many there are in reality: whether red, green and blue paired to antired, antiblue, antigreen give rise to 3x3 = 9 different gluons? Or do you then subtract one gluon to make the physics work (giving 8 gluons), without saying the one you are subtracting? :) For that matter, colour charge is hardly a fundamental property. In any nucleon, neutron or proton, there are 2 identical quarks apart from their colour charges, which differ. Is this real? How can it be real if the gluon number is 9-1 =8 to make it "fit"? This is a REAL epicycle. What is going on is that the physics of Pauli's exclusion principle is ignored. It is the exclusion principle which supposedly prevents two fermions with the same quantum numbers occurring, hence colour charge. But what is the mechanism for the Pauli exclusion principle? There are four quantum numbers, three having to do with orbits which are easy to grasp, but the fourth and key one is for spin, which gives rise to magnetism. The magnetism of electrons won't add up, the electrons stay aligned on average to minimum magnetic energy, so the field is cancelled out. If you drop two bar magnets, they align beside one another with one pointing one way and the other the opposite way. Surely this is the explanation for the pairing of adjacent electrons with opposite spins, giving the exclusion principle?
ReplyDeletePLato saids, "Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle said "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth"
To Remember: Eskesthai
;-)
Woit is already a follower of Witten in quantum chromodynamics, but not yet a believer in M-theory!
ReplyDeletePerhaps Woit will eventually 'see the light' and start saying he believes in 11 dimensional supergravity?
All you may need to do is to keep calling Woit names, and suggesting he is crazy or has had an unhappy life! Is this what satisifies Plato?
Ignoring what the mechanisms of spin and magnetism in the electron are, and how the Pauli principle works, and whether it applies to quarks where the vacuum field is so much more important than in electrons? :-)
To ignore simplicity, and to leap to the most complex possibilities of extra-dimensional speculation? To force physics which may be justifiable in 100 years time on the world today, when there is no *evidence* for it?
All you may need to do is to keep calling Woit names, and suggesting he is crazy or has had an unhappy life! Is this what satisifies Plato?
ReplyDeleteOf course not, anymore then I would want you to carry the burden for him, and his felt seclusion from all that thinks society might have thought at the time, and passed over him for, a set agenda in the science world. It does not need for us to be the highest caliber of anything, not to see the effect this has had even though he has been treated good by his collegues in his profession.
You are forgeting one thing here in terms of symmetry breaking, that if such were the case, what would it be breaking from?
There are two perspectives here that I see.
One is the early universe phase transitions, as well as, how we might have percieved such breaking in the geometric sense. Even though, as we peer ever deeper into the reality of the world compacted(Dirac had such an eye and so did Einstein once he realized Grossmans contribution) to leading idealization of Riemann's geometries.
What field and natures are being revealled to us?
Is it a solid metal plate one can see, or is there action going on within the very nature of those matters?
So you gain in terms of what measure is viable from the idea of gluonic perceptions and plasmatic relations.
What is special here then that a Lee Smoin might turn his attention? A way in which to measure gluonic perceptions maybe?
This only allows him to deal with Glast perceptions(watch the little movie applet and see how our perception has been extended) to a certain point, and his reign in terms of seeking to measure (SR), has come to a end, in loop quantum gravity?
So how shall we pass Smolin's position on SR?
Dear Plato,
ReplyDeleteYou need perhaps to view Baez's page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html. The final item in the list reads:
'50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.'
This explains Baez's rejection of string theory. Witten in 1995 claimed to have a prediction of gravity, by unifying superstrings with supergravity. However it made 'no concrete testable predictions'.
By the Baez index, it therefore scores 50 points, while the Feynman gravity mechanism I put together from established facts only scores 5 points for step 1: 'A -5 point starting credit.'
Using the Baez index, you should therefore reject string theory as crackpot, and announce that Feynman was on to gravity mechanism in 1964. Of course, you won't! But if you really believed in the Baez index, you'd be worried about Professor Josephson's quantum theory of supernatural phenomena.
But if you really believed in the Baez index, you'd be worried about Professor Josephson's quantum theory of supernatural phenomena.
ReplyDeleteBefore you asked Josephson for help, did you let him know what you thought about his crackpot theory?
Okay, so maybe afterward you learnt something about Josephson, and because he did not help, this confirms your suspicion. He's a crackpot?
Like I said, you are not alone in this. And like I said before, if I held something against Gerard t' hooft becuase of his bird watching, do you think I should have condemned his career because of it?
Having won a Nobel prize, years later, age might have seen the degration of mind and senility fast aproaching as a "justified wording" for him?
One has to have a certain amount of respect, or have none at all?
Did you know John Nash like to watch the patterns of birds for some natural underlying pattern? What would make the guiding principal of the birds in flocks, go this way and then that?
So in essence, because they did not listen to you, "crackpotism" will be the measure of the beliefs that are not supported by science outside of an individuals "extra dimensional/curricular" beliefs? :)
I thought we went through this already?
Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "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." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.
Like you, I listen to what Fool's Gold might have implied. Yet if for any reason I saw fit to tie the circle and it's expansive features to any certain qualities, I will at the same time remind you that this will turn inside out at some point. :)Or that we can view the circle one way as well, view it from another.
How simple it would be if I applied it to the circular arrangement of the collider. The energies that we needed in order to arrive at such reductionistic valuations, and at the same time help one to see the energy relation as very important?
Imagine this collider taking up cosmological proportions. This is already understood in the benefit the cosmological scenario helps in our regards. We knew we would run into limitations here on earth?
Why John Ellis was very important in our discernations of the values outside of these colliders. It didn't mean this information couldn't exist when we looked at cosmological scenariosn with recutiostic ideas. So what was th ebeginning of the uiverse like?
Greene talks about these enlighhtening moments from a psychological standpoint, but I like to take it one step further.
Sue me:)
Dear Plato,
ReplyDeleteBefore I asked Josephson for help I only knew he had invented the physics calculations for the Josephson junction, and since that isn't used in any technology, I thought it would be good to see if he was interested in a real computer than can be made to help the world now.
I was at Gloucestershire University in Cheltenham, studying programming, and was amazed to receive a completely disgusting email from him in reply. But I persevered, and took it as a sour joke, replying "yes this is funny, but would you like to be involved with this article or not?"
He then sent a second email, saying that his charges for teaching physics are well beyond my means.
Quite frankly, I didn't need this type of thing. If he has any problem with idea, he could have said what it was, but instead of being pleasant, I received abuse.
It was then only then that I searched to find what he is currently working on in physics, and found it was similar stuff to string theory (ESP or UFOs, I don't remember which). It was not hard science, but soft stuff which is often used as script for Star Trek, The X Files, and the Twilight Zone.
I didn't exactly "ask him for help". I emailed to ask if he would like to be co-author, which would have meant a payment from Electronics World. (Although I think I wrote some of these without payment, because I thought it a good idea to try to get something done.)
At a deeper level, I think Catt is wrong in having innate faith in society.
People enjoy bashing new ideas which are struggling to gain acceptance. They enjoy sneering, and this is not just when asked for help. People will actively attack innovation, pretending to be defending status quo against anti-science fanatics.
The only people who can really escape this are, unfortunately, politicians. They have the excuse that they were elected to change the world. Everyone else is deemed an egotist. Ultimately you see this in the Bible, where the mocking label "The King of the Jews" was nailed to the cross.
Innovation = egotism.
Science = status quo.
Change = attack on science.
Nigel
On cosmic variance, it is sad to see Woit saying: "I would claim that the standard model is best thought of by thinking about a 16 dimensional space (a fiber bundle with fibers SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) over spacetime)."
ReplyDeletePost 12 on http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/07/how-many-dimensions-are-there/
Someone else comments on GLUONS:
The issue of whether there are 10 or 11 dimensions in ST reminds you of the issue whether there are 8 or 9 gluons in QCD. James Bottomley and John Baez discuss this here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/gluons.html
Nine types of gluon:
green-antigreen, green-antired, green-antiblue,
red-antired, red-antiblue, red-antigreen,
blue-antiblue, blue-antired, blue-antigreen.
Why then are there only eight gluons? To make the physics work, you have to subtract one, but you don’t say which particular one you subtract. They concluded:
“If you are wondering what the hell I am doing subtracting particles from each other, well, that’s quantum mechanics. This may have made things seem more, rather than less, mysterious, but in the long run I’m afraid this is what one needs to think about.”