Wednesday, February 16, 2005


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

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

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

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

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

The Planck Epoch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No comments:

Post a Comment