Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Dirac's Hidden Geometries

I find this interesting because I like to visualizze as much as possible, and I sometimes think the basis of the leading ideas in science would had to follow a progression. Klein's Ordering of Geometries was one such road that seem to make sense. The basis of relativity lead through in geometrical principals?

Such an issue with string theory had to have such a basis with it as well, although how do you assign any views to the very begininngs of the universe below planck length? Well there are images to contend with what are these and how are they derived? Rotations held in context of te progression of this universe and all thoughts held to the very nature of particle creation and degrees fo freedom?


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.

While I am very far from being the mathematician, I understand that this basis is very important. Such summations in mathmatical design, leave a flavour, for conceptiual ideas to form in images, so I understand this as well. It is a progression of sorts I think, as I read, and learn. Geometry lies at the very basis of all such progressions in science?

So Feynmans toy models arose from the ideas of Dirac?

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Professor Shiing-Shen Chern

Editorial, Electronic Edition Vol. 28, No. 2, 2002

Shiing-Shen Chern -- famed mathematicianCarrie Sturrock, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 9, 2004

He was a great mathematician partly because of the quality of his research as well as his ability to convey it to other people, UC Berkeley mathematics Professor Robin Hartshorne said. Professor Chern turned the once- dormant field of differential geometry, which deals with the mathematical description of geometric figures, into a lively field of study. He had the greatest impact on global differential geometry and complex algebraic geometry, which are fundamental to many areas of mathematics and theoretical physics.

Big Ideas.....To String Theory

Plato said:
yes to Gauss and gaussian coordinates, not forgetting, Saccheri, Bolyai and Lobschevasky along this lineage of geometers

On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry

So A continuation from this, and reference to important papers for consideration.

I was actually looking for papers on S.S.Chern and I have been having difficulty tracking down one of his papers entitled,"Relativity and Post Reimannian Differential Geometry," published in 1980. As I look, I usually come across interesting sites for consideration. They do indeed lead from one spot to another willy-nilly.

So I thought I would show the transition to topics that I compiled for reference in relation to string theory.

So having gone through a list here as follows, I came upon the article from a site called "Big Ideas". It was nice then, that I link to the site in question and the article for consideration. Talk about getting off the beaten path.:)

My intentions was to see how Gauss's and S.S. Chern's work correlated together and developed in line with Reimann. Hence the paper in question I was looking for. If anything had change my perspective, Gauss and Reimann were instrumental here and the understading of the metric. Gaussian coordinates help united much for me into the picture General Relativity had taken me too in see the dynamcial nature of the graviational field.

Big Ideas

It is of course from 2003, but always interesting nonetheless.

I understand Clifford's hesistancy on articles that have come out and some trepidation also seen by P.P. Cook on the issue Horizon of Hawkings in his article here. My focused is well set to this horizon as well, as th e question of blackhole types etc, and how such theoretical positions arise fromthis horizon. This was important to me that I move to the understanding of conformal ideas from tha horizon.

But articles, as best they can, hopefully can bring the lay person up to speed on what these ladies and gentlemen are doing with string theory and such. They help me in the generalized direction, so I hope all things are not to lost for Clifford and Paul in their entrancement of observation. "Disgust" to something fine in the media of consideration.

I noticed Paul's link to Jan Troost's site and have seen that site develope from inception, so it was interesting to continue to see the summation of string theory on his site as well. There are really good sites out there that I have kept track of, to help orientate my thinking in regards to to theoretical thinking at it's finest.

The Total Field

For me this title above strikes a cord somehow in the struggle and regard, leading in our comprehensions to the extension of the standard model. By bringing gravity into the picture and descibing the graviton teaming in the bulk of expression.

The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to grvaitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the toal field.
Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein

Well now the reason why this paragraph strikes such a chord with me, has everything to do with the information that I have progressed through, in order to reach this vision Lisa Randall does not think one asa layman is capable of? Now I should be fair here, and I am not judging personalities, but the essence of the statements about "observation" and "vision".

Lisa Randall:
Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."

Now in my quest for comprehension, such building has gone on in my conceptual foundations, are ones that we are carefully lead through in theoretical developement. Ah so we see where such extensions have gone beyond th elayan's view then? To have such things of expression, in the computer world, as numerical relativity, is a nice way in which to round out the data and experience. But as she points out, we are talking about Physicists.

Lisa Randall:
Remarkably, we can potentially "see" or "observe" evidence of extra dimensions.

Those Russion Dolls

Well now. I have this strange picture in my head about "time variable images" we seen of the earth in measure, and such a statement above, by Einstein. It is information on the "total field" that struck immediately in my mind about all those things that lead one through to the comprehension of general relativity. It is indeed, about "gravity" and it indeed seen in the larger aspects of the cosmological scale. But then, how would such a thing take us down to scale in our look at quantum mechanical views. Other components of earth that efect time avraiableness and we are indeed driving this image of scale down to the component parts of our earth?

So I have this picture of earth here. I know its not so pretty, but it describes in greater context the world as you have not seen it before. This advancement in observation, is much more inherent in our culture now, that the grade with which we assign physicists and the lay persons, are really never that far apart. What was accomplished, was that leading infomration and theorectical developement paved the way for an "illustrous view" as to those I impart now. They were already there but never seen in context of each other and as a total field.

So now as I think about Lisa's words, I recognize more deeply the sigificance of how far our vision has been taken, not just in terms of the physicists view, but of how far we had been taken in layman terms as well. What then else retains this view about the total field that I had not show and in it writing, other images come to mind as follows.

So developing this sense in terms of relativity and views of Einstein in regards to the total filed had consequences in my mind about how we view things in new ways.

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Now it has to be understood, that the total field is one which has inclusiveness such as these boxes indicate, that such views of our blue marble earth, do not consider as we lay "one" over the top of another. Such extensions to our views of earth, lead me to understand the complexity of these views in ways that we had not considered before, and with such a synoptical view, what indeed shall this total field say about earth? So that's where I am at. Much like, Glast, in it's own synoptical view about the range of our vision.

So we have this frame of reference now to consider. Our apprehensions about earth(some who share the climatic valuation) that we can now say, that Inverse square law contains information in relation to "these boxes". That if taken to "new heights" our climatic valuations about this new view of earth, how shall we judge now, that such Kaluza Klein modes held in relation to the expanding nature of this point(circle) can have energy valuations assigned right from the supersymmetrical vision ofa beginning, to have phases (symmetry breaking)with which our views have been generated, in what we see of earth now?

While indeed then, "light had been joined to gravity" how shall we wrap again the views of this earth, in what is now a teaming in this new place, where differences exist in our views. Strengths and weaknesses, are measures in this new abstracted view?

So we have this total view in mind, about the "total field" and I have taken us to a a abstracted space within the idealization of what exists here now as earth arose from some beginning point. To what the earth encapsulates.

How we view then such comsological events has a greater story as we look deep into space, and see the valution of those same cosmological events streaming past all things in existance, that such a gravitational view has arrows pointing in a certain direction. To ideas about comsological expansion and such. This has gone to far I think about our place in this new abstracted view of the universe:)

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Point--> Line-->Plane <---> Point<-- String<-- Brane

Under the heading of Klein`s Ordering of the Geometries :

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

Now the usual thinking here has been placed under intense thinking by the introduction of a new way in which to look at "geometry" that has gone through a "revision" in thinking.

New trigonometry is a sign of the times

Lubos Motl introduces this topic and link in his blog entry and from this this has caused great consternation in how I am seeing. I see Lisa Randall might counter this in terms of what the brain is capable of, in line with this revisionary seeing, and comparative examples of this geometry Lubos links.

Dangling Particles,By LISA RANDALL
Published: September 18, 2005 New York Yimes

Lisa Randall:
Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen." I do theoretical research on string theory and particle physics and try to focus on aspects of those theories we might experimentally test. My most recent research is about extra dimensions of space. Remarkably, we can potentially "see" or "observe" evidence of extra dimensions. But we won't reach out and touch those dimensions with our fingertips or see them with our eyes. The evidence will consist of heavy particles known as Kaluza-Klein modes that travel in extra-dimensional space. If our theories correctly describe the world, there will be a precise enough link between such particles (which will be experimentally observed) and extra dimensions to establish the existence of extra dimensions.

But first before I get to the essence of the title of my blog entry, I like to prep the mind for what is seemingly a consistent move towards geometry that has it's basis in applicabilty to physics, and move through GR to a vast new comprehsnsion in non-euclidean geometries. Must we now move backwards that we had gained in insight, or was it recognition of the "length scales" that we now say, how could such a dynamcial view ever be assigned to the eucildean discription under the guise of brane world recognitions?

Moving Backwards?

What exactly do I mean here?

Well the idea is that if you move to fifth dimensional views, and there are ways to wrap this within our "Brains":) We then see the dynamcial nature of our neurons have found acceptable ways in which to see this brane feature. As well as, approaches in use of new processes in geometerical considerations as those linked by Lubos.

Dealing with 5D world

Thomas Banchoff is instrumental here is showing us that fifth dimensional views can be utilized in our computer screens, and such comparisons, reduce to a two dimensional frame, makes it very easy to accept this new way in which to attack the dynamcial nature of reality.

How indeed now could our computer screen act a liason with the reality of our world, when see from screen imagery effects, that all the rules of order have been safely applied for inspection and consistancy in physics approaches.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Time to be Grounded:) Not!

In Garden and Writing by Clifford of Cosmic Variance, this piece reminded me of the "realities" and the approaches of "circumstance". These are our lives?

Things that we do to help us, and remind us of the way to approach this streaming dialogue deeper held, to bring outward, to the pen felt drawn word or picture? Death's door, loosing our figures of time, books and words, that help change who we are?

Probabilistic valuation set to condensate or soliton approach mattered defined in conceptual logic frame?

A "poetry of emotive charge" for the wants of a better time( a fresher air), lost to the reality all around us to engines, planes trains and auotmobiles.:) A home forgotten? A earth fresher begotten?

IN a soft moment, Rivero reminds of the way things use to be, and in these memories things retrospect bring us closer to all things that make us who we are. No where are their maps to progress this character of ours, that we see this master plan, but relegated and caught in our microcosm classroom world held, only the memory of the world.

It is always much larger, when we physically revisit "ole domains":)

So yes to getting the hands dirty and feeling earth touched, that such grounding, makes time for new moments appear. Better words, from a ethered view of information that exists all around.

From a mystic drawl of a cowboy slang, to a refined English gentleman? It doesn't matter when you change the overcoat, because the seasons hold their own regard for how we shall address the circumstance.

Back to work:)

CFT and the Tomato Soup Can

As always, the layman trying to develope the mathematical views?:)

Greg Kuperberg on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Conformal maps of the Earth are a great introduction to complex analysis. If you identify the Earth with the Riemann sphere, then the Mercator map is exp(i*z), while the quincuncial projection is a Weierstrass elliptic function. Or you could view it as a 2-to-1 conformal projection from a torus to a sphere with four ramified points. I imagine that it is relevant to one-loop calculations in string theory in that guise.

At what level has this map then progressed if we held such views to the "horizon and boundary conditions." That is now replaces what we talk about of earth, and now relay the mass consideration to events in the gravitational field? Has the mathematic hypothesized now, gone through a revision, and needed support of mathematical views?

Campbell's Soup Can A. Warhol

What mathematics would move our perception to the gravitational views seen there? Gary Horowitz relays the outside label of a can of a soup as the conformal surface, while the soup, the spacetime fabric?

On planet Earth, we tend to think of the gravitational effect as being the same no matter where we are on the planet. We certainly don't see variations anywhere near as dramatic as those between the Earth and the Moon. But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

So one would look at topography as something much different then what is laid out on this globe as "hills and valleys"?

So now this map, has this extra feature to it.

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondance between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinquish which discription is more fundamental.

Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

While on this topic it behooves me to think of the "horizon" and the mathematical construct that has taken us there. While we see to explain the nature of the effect in a fifth dimensional view, it had been reduced to "temperature" as a relation of this conformal view?

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

As much as one would try and ignore this position, you cannot get away from the mathematics or the approach and what this has culminated too.

I like Peter and his no nonsense views, but he has gone to far in rejecting the basis of "mathematical dialogue" in face of what D brane issue had been taken too?

Why would he reject mathematics on the one hand demonstrative of a particular point of view to which it has developed, then, ignore what position it had taken both string theory and Lee Smolins attempts at the disciption of the blackhole dynamics, from the views of that horizon?

With regards to the conformal field theory approach. While I am in my infancy, I recognize the views of Bekenstein Bound, and the hologrpahical approach. One must first learn to crawl, then walk I know, but how indeed does one get to the vision held, when he himself(who ever you like) cannot explain how such a mathematics like string theory, arose to help with our views of reality?

In 1919, Kaluza sent Albert Einstein a preprint --- later published in 1921 --- that considered the extension of general relativity to five dimensions. He assumed that the 5-dimensional field equations were simply the higher-dimensional version of the vacuum Einstein equation, and that all the metric components were independent of the fifth coordinate. The later assumption came to be known as the cylinder condition. This resulted in something remarkable: the fifteen higher-dimension field equations naturally broke into a set of ten formulae governing a tensor field representing gravity, four describing a vector field representing electromagnetism, and one wave equation for a scalar field. Furthermore, if the scalar field was constant, the vector field equations were just Maxwell's equations in vacuo, and the tensor field equations were the 4-dimensional Einstein field equations sourced by an EM field. In one fell swoop, Kaluza had written down a single covariant field theory in five dimensions that yielded the four dimensional theories of general relativity and electromagnetism. Naturally, Einstein was very interested in this preprint .

While one may use sites to give indicative values ot the information, can we ignore these assumptions mathematically driven. It paved the way for how we view things that we did not see before. Go ahead reject it then:)

Are we not looking for the Trigger?:)

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Atlas and Proton-proton Collisions

Depth of Perception

I am responding to the link here on Cosmic Variance and the related article, Cosmic Violence. I do not want to tie up their space, so my "further response" is being given here.

I speak of Glast in the context of that "Window on the Universe" view. This helps to orientate our deeping recognition of those events, but does not include the realization of where high energy considerations are taking us as well.:)

What is happening at the beginning of our Universe? High energy implications and lower energy determinations reveal prospective views about that same universe? How is it such a view created by such particle collisions could not be drawn to a certain time in our universe?

By getting to the "high energy times", we are also getting to the circle (think the planck epoch to now) valuation of that early universe? There are always results of energy dissipaton of these early cosmological events, so it needed a consistant way in which to look at this?

The machine, dubbed ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS), is one of four facilities to be located at a powerful accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), now under construction near Geneva, in Switzerland.

If we were to accept the circle and strong curvature as evident from our early universe considerations, (think of the circle and the planck epoch diagram as a blackhole?), then what happens when our views have been taken to suspersymmetrical points of view and the whole picture becomes locked within the model computation that Andrey Kravtsov does for us. The relaization is that this circle when taken down to planck has extremely strng gravitational considerations, and when and how do we reach this level of consideration on the time and birth of this universe?

IN Regards to Mathematical Constructs

Such an article presented by Peter Woit (How Much Mathematics Does A Theoretical Physicist Need To Know?), had me thinking in terms of what the quoted italicized statement below might mean in terms of the consistancy of mathematics developed?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=256#comment-4918(my comment below)Click on post and you now see the numbered posts alignment. What's the point?

Plato said:
If the Horizon exists as a mathematical construct, would we dissallow any mathematical counterpart that would lead from this, to incorporate other perspectives?

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

Developement of the mathematics would have been consistent then in how strng theory had developed?

So we know getting to the depth of perception necessary, had to include physics views here in order to develope the framework. High energy consideration could not have done it on it's own, so the topic is masked in theoretical definitions that we are not to accustomed too?:)

Yet it deals with a specific time frame in the developement of the early universe that is below Planck length. Below the "Planck epoch" (this holds a measureable time frame just after the beginning of the universe?)is the realization and "time valuation" that we assign this new perspective view, when we take physics in hand and abstract mathematics to it's fruitation?

While the link has been maintained to Peter Woits Blog, the post has not. It had been supplemented by Dickt's post.

This won't deter the documents and valuation of what string theory had to offer, and refused acknowledgement by Peter Woit to the progress, such developements might have taken string theory too?:)Tricky post like I wrote, acknowledges not only string theories position but Lee Smolins pursuate as well:)

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

So, Where was I?

Looking at the horizon as a "mathematical construct" we certainly take our abtract issues seriouly don't we?

Black Hole in Search of a Home

A team of European astronomers has used two of the most powerful astronomical facilities available, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory's (ESO) Very Large Telescope (VLT) at Cerro Paranal, to find a bright quasar without a massive host galaxy. Quasars are powerful and typically very distant sources of prodigious amounts of radiation. They are commonly associated with galaxies containing an active central black hole.

The team conducted a detailed study of 20 relatively nearby quasars. For 19 of them, they found, as expected, that these supermassive black holes are surrounded by a host galaxy. But when they studied the bright quasar HE0450-2958, located some 5 billion light-years away, they could not find evidence for a host galaxy. This, the astronomers suggest, may indicate a rare case of collision between a seemingly normal spiral galaxy and a much more exotic object harboring a very massive black hole.

The paper on HE0450-2958 will be published in the Sept. 15, 2005 issue of Nature.

Static, Uncharged - Schwarzschild Black Holes.

RS = 2MG/C2

M: mass of the black hole

G: 6.67 x 10-11

C: 3 x 108

(When an object is compressed below its Schwarzschild radius (RS), it becomes a black hole.)

Static, Charged - Reissner-Nordström Black Holes

Rotating (Kerr) Black Holes, Charged and Uncharged



Monday, September 12, 2005

From Strings to Cosmic Web

From November 30 to December 2 a conference will be held in Groningen about the origins and structure of the Universe. Astrophysicists will meet theoretical physicists, whereby astrophysical evidence for the fundamental parameters describing the Universe will be confronted with current ideas on fundamental physical laws.

Types of Blackholes

Now the statement below is important from one perspective that is not to my mind explained very good. I mean, taken from the public views, how is it such a thing like the blackhole could exist, and what scientific validations do we have for it.

This is an important question, as we learn from the statement below that this is all a mathematical construct, yet it has moved many avenues of research to build upon what we know in terms of issues about what is emitted from the horizon.

Thus far, all that we know of a black hole and its properties are mathematical deductions. The event horizon, for instance, is purely a mathematical constructProject Members from CCSP02 Semester 2, 2000-2001

How advance then our mathematical constructs become, if such realities have been merged in the mathematics, to have it detail a world in cosmology, that enlists what could happen in a geometrical valuation system. What would implore K values determined in the Friedmann equations, in the determination of our universe? Such universal implications detail further insight to determinations of curvatures parameters, that leads the mind to incorporate something much more dynamical in the geometrical nature of those same collapsing stars.

As the star is of a finite mass, there comes a time when its nuclear fuel is exhausted and as a result, the outward pressure due to radiation decreases, allowing the gravitational force to compress the star inward. The contraction of the core results in an increase in temperature which allows the remaining nuclear material to be used as fuel and thus yet again increasing the outward pressure such that hydrostatic equilibrium is once again established. The star is thus saved from further collapsed but only for a while.

This idea and nature of the "corner of the room", had me wonder how could such a thing quiver the nature of the spacetime fabric, if we did not realize that this vacuum had some truer nature to the implication of events that happen so far away in our early times. That we could have found such evidence in the here and now.

So of course such extravaganze, is in our measures of what LIGO can do or LIsa in all it's glory had been the theoretcial approach of the Wheeler's and Kip Thornes of our day, that we now implore the quest for such infomration.

Then why not too the idea that such a vacuum reveallled in our measure could have left evidence in how this spacetime will stretch with regards to that gravitational measure? So we look for these deviation in what might have been implied in those extra dimensions?

Now true to it all this mathematical construct has produced an amazing set of circumstance as show here that leads humanity to develope and proceed along some schedule as to becoming aware of the nature of our reality?

Friday, September 09, 2005

Quark Gluon Plasma

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

This form of matter is called quark-gluon plasma or QGP. Like its name suggests, QGP is a "soup", or plasma, of quarks and gluons.

(see physics primer)

RHIC Scientists Serve Up “Perfect” Liquid

“The truly stunning finding at RHIC that the new state of matter created in the collisions of gold ions is more like a liquid than a gas gives us a profound insight into the earliest moments of the universe,” said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the DOE Office of Science.

Also of great interest to many following progress at RHIC is the emerging connection between the collider’s results and calculations using the methods of string theory, an approach that attempts to explain fundamental properties of the universe using 10 dimensions instead of the usual three spatial dimensions plus time.

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach
“The possibility of a connection between string theory and RHIC collisions is unexpected and exhilarating,” Dr. Orbach said. “String theory seeks to unify the two great intellectual achievements of twentieth-century physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics, and it may well have a profound impact on the physics of the twenty-first century.”

So the issue is which blackholes would help point towards this supersymmetrical view that I jest in the Ipod post and the ipod that forms the perfect fluid? So this idea then about which blackhole has to have found some value in what I assign the new Ipod technology, that takes back to a time near the beginning of the universe.

Some say if you have to explain the joke then it sort of devalues the joke. Not in this case if you move forward with it, and see what the latest is in research. Sort of "sets the stage" as I allude too, in this other article of cosmic variance's.

A simple jesture is the question of course (Clifford reminds us here) and without it, how can you move perception forward? It's kind of hard to do that on your own, limited by the current knowledge one might have. So you in essence look forward to those areas that help direct this knowledge. For those who want to rehash the ID debate, only add fuel to the fire for the believers. Better to let it die it's own death and watch for the merits of scientific valuation that is brought forth through media. Speak directly to this only, and the refutation will be it's measure by it's own design.

What conditions would have allowed such a scene to be developed in supersymmetrical view, that I had wondered, could such a perfect fluid be the example needed? What blackholes hole would allow such a view to be carried down to this level in gold ion collisions, that we might see the results of string theory, as a useful analogy in the discernation of what can now be brought forward for inspection. As to the credibility of what string/M-Theory proposes?

Give value to string theory where previous comments on the nature of experimental research has lacked luster for this approach? The name choosen for the new Ipod model was specific, as it provided for the idea that we can take this supersymmetrical reality closer to the beginning of this universe and use the BPS blackhole nature for this conisdertaion and resulting fliud nature realized?

What conditions would provide for such a reality?

So of course by incinuation what is the nature of this BPS Blackhole that I am refering. That will be the issue on the next post created.

Mission Impossible?

Tom Cruise tackles the new world of Mission's Impossible III. What kind of recording system will he use? You got it, the illustrous Ipod? :)

Plato said:
Hey I got one for you. You remember mission impossible. Well in this case, your only able to use the ipod once, then it turns into a super liquid.

It wouldn't be right to give a older paper for inspection of Gerard's and not to include current present day assessment on the issues here. Ipodmanship has run it's course, so we'll have to wait for Clifford to update:)

But in the mean time, Bps blackhole sets up the idea of supersymmetrical valuation?

Plato said:
It’s called a “BPS Ipod”. This would surely be a “hotty and a smoothy”?

Gerard t' Hooft:
In particular the gravitational interactions are responsible for the unitarity of the scattering against the horizon, as dictated by the holographic principle, but the Standard Model interactions also contribute, and understanding their effects is an important first step towards a complete understanding of the horizon’s dynamics. The relation between in- and outgoing states is described in terms of an operator algebra. In this paper, the first of a series, we describe the algebra induced on the horizon by U(1) vector fields and scalar fields, including the case of an Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, and a more careful consideration of the transverse vector field components.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

New Conceptualization: The Distance on the Brain:)

Now again before you jump to conclusions and say what a crackpot I am, listen to what I have to say about how I see in the coordinates assigned to the corner of the room. I give explicit idealizations in terms of measure, yet in these same quadrants, something much more had to be realized.

I accept the theoretical position of what the vacuum might mean from the beginning of time (?), or that it has always existed, and that events, are recognized from it's quivering in the very nature of that space-time fabric. But more then this the example below, asks not that you focus on the membrane that is demonstrated but of what causes this membrane to act as it does.

You see this is what sort of transfixes me to such views, where such distances are connected, even though there are problems with this view. Elasticity of a kind stretches far beyond our imaginations, to have gravity explain itself in what the bulk might represent in the space of all things. Bubble nucleation takes on new meaning here, all the while discrete things attract our attention in this world, there is something happening beyond the seen here, to understand what is not seen is very much real too.

Stretching the Brain

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Quantum Gravity: The Blackhole

Drawing Plane and Coordinate Systems More information is given here in Wiki.

There is no "distance" separating cosmological events, from the cubic centimeter in the corner of the room? I have to tell you why I see this, and what lead me to conclude such a thing. As I relay at bottom of page, this will be the subject of the next posted thread.

Imagine spreading such malicious comments as those in bold below?:)

Brian Greene
Sure. One of the strangest features of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we see directly in the world around us. That sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory. So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they're all around us, but they're small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and therefore are more difficult to detect.

I guess the link to source is good enough sometimes but not the page with which the url exists?:)

Sometimes all it takes is a concept to fuel the direction with which we might presume to deal with this world of the spacetime fabric. Brian Greene surmizes, and in a synoptic mode aligns our view for consideration, or a Lee Smolin, in developing Three roads, previews quantum gravity approaches for consideration. This "lineage", is developed in this sense.

The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene, is a good source for inspiration, on my "The Fifth Dimension, is the Spacetime Fabric." I am gone in a whisper, and advancement is placed for those who will exceed our limitation in how we percieve the world. This is the way it has always been. On and upward.:)

Good people like Gerard t'Hooft help direct our attention in a most appropriate way, even amidst the ramble of rejection of any theoretical position. Once the comment is established, then indeed we move ahead to wonder and draw the conclusions we do, with a whole page of such reasoning. This whole blog is filled with this central idea.

Imagine molecules in the corner cubic centimeter of the room( nice visulaization for a strting point), and all that exists in this space is contained, all, the information of the universe at large? Would I have triggered ideas in the notion that Pierre Auger seen something unusual in cosmic interactive features of our current earth, as a playing field for particle reductionism? In face of LHC and all the wonderful toys that have been produced to extend vision in a reductionistic world? You have to remember John Ellis here, is how I ascent to views in these two different ways.

Gerard t' Hooft:
The predominant force controlling large scale events in the Universe is the gravitational one. The physical and the mathematical nature of this force were put in an entirely new perspective by Albert Einstein. He noted that gravitation is rooted in geometric properties of space and time themselves. The equations he wrote down for this force show a remarkable resemblance with the gauge forces that control the sub-nuclear world as described in the previous paragraph, but there is one essential difference: if we investigate how individual sub-atomic particles would affect one another gravitationally, we find that the infinities are much worse, and renormalization fails here. Under normal circumstances, the gravitational force between sub-atomic particles is so weak that these difficulties are insignificant, but at extremely tiny distance scales, of the order of 10-33 cm, this force will become strong. We are tempted to believe that, at these tiny distance scales, the fabric of space and time is affected by quantum mechanical phenomena, but exactly how this happens is still very mysterious. One approach to this problem is to ask: under which circumstance is the gravitational force as strong as it ever can be? The answer to this is clear: at the horizon of a black hole. If we could understand the peculiar physical phenomena that one expects at the horizon of a black hole, and if we could find a meaningful description of its quantum mechanical laws, then perhaps this would open up new perspectives.

Smolins interpretive stance of the blackhole horizon( glast determnations fuel this venture into recognition of a discrete approach to measure,) in what is emitted on a cosmological scale. Others who paved the way for this horizon problem, take us back, Hawking, to the pre-established roads to wonder, where today does subject sit? How well in minds has this conclusion played out, that we have ventured forth in a wonderful way to approach this in such a theoretical fashion. That only "pure thought", mathematics, could have paved the way of where physics will continued on in physical interpretation.

I will introduce the idea of this "membrane analogy in the cubic centimentor:)" for further consideration, shortly after I attend to getting wood fuel for the winter months today.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Looking Under The Lamp Post

Foundational Mathematics and Physics?

I reproduce the post written below to Peter's Quantum Gravity Commentary because that basis of determinations supported by John Baez, introduces a new line of thinking, that as a layman, forces me to think about mathematics and physics in their context.

John Baez:
In short: it may be less important to work on physics when there’s a high chance one is barking up the wrong tree and ones work will wind up in the dustbin of history, than to do math that’s clearly good.

This issue, of course, is part of what Peter’s blog is all about
But, I understand the disappointed feelings you are expressing, because physics is a wonderful quest. It’s very hard to give it up, even in times like ours when it’s hard to tell if real progress is being made..

As the thinking of General Relativity unfolded I could not help to consider the developement of geometry through this process. Now, we have interesting physics experiments in relation cosmological questioons. Applicability of the enviroment to particle reductionism and collisions( see Steven Gidding here on blackhole production, or Pierre Auger experiments spoken to by John Ellis) in a modern world.

Corections made here in post after seeing no post their on Peter Woit's site>

Interesting ways in which to measure gravitational deviations?

So do we say, no gravitational differences exist? Two avenues to exploration make themself known and also the question of how we might see landscape abilities spread through interactive phases at levels of energy detrminations that warrant such views relative to physics developement and mathematical forays? I am getting confused.

John Baez said: The existence, number, and character of supergravity theories depends strongly on the dimension of spacetime!


John, you point out the basis of Peter's Blog and assert the basis of math as a lone venture outside of physics. Might it be concievable, that math should have the basis of physics at it's core, as it extends itself in those abtract realms?


IN Sylvester surfaces, while it seems these shapes "beautiful", it would have not made more sense if the Dynkin diagrams, a introduction by Nigel Hitchens, would help us see B Field manifestation as interesting outside of the physics, yet related?

In a QG atmosphere, such landscape applicabiltiy would help extend concept developement to math relations you speak of in different weeks?

Saturday, September 03, 2005

More Quantum Gravity Comments

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Now relax before you start assigning numerical values to the opening statement:) Might I see a greater context in the evaporation(decay), of course, and I will say I like to think all things have some issue in this regard? Some evidence?:)

After I wrote my post below on quantum gravity and related Jacques comments, I was glad to find Lubos Motl and Peter Woit both had created similar posts to address this issue a little more deeply. Reference to John Baez was also very important, from the basis of clearing up the view points Peter holds to in regards to his feelings on quantum gravity as well.

I know that my view is much distant from the qualified aspects of these gentleman have to offered. I find hope, that there might be this capable resolution to giving perspective to where perspective is needed. This is valuable to me, as I know with some conviction the idea of this landscape will not let go of my inquiring mind.

Finding methods of application in the weak field measure were held in mind when dimensional significance was assign those extra dimenions. As we find the attempts at experimental verification less then satisfying, or the views to moon measure(?), it became clear to me, we already were doing things in this regard, and just were not privy to these views.

I know too, to limited the alchemical relation or be torched on the ground of crackpotism rules assigned a numerical value to any opening statement, so I had to be careful here in referring to the Thalean view:) This aspect was consider when I held to view the new methods at dealing with gravity with our space born measuring eye to eye. I have nothing more to say about the too and fro, and the distant measurte her eof our global planet, that I would too consider the extension of the Reimannian view had also be extended by me and not limited as Peter might have thought.

Lubos said:
But that's not how it works in the quantum world. If an event is very "weak" - such as a decay of a light nucleus - quantum mechanics dictates that with a probability close to one, the process has *no* impact whatsoever on spacetime geometry (or the electromagnetic field); and there is a small probability that one produces one (or a few) gravitons (or photons).

Although I would not like to invoke mysticism in this venture, the "weak field" view had amazed me when I understood that a measure would be capable in a new global perspective, spoken to here.

While I had to remind of compassion that exists, I had to interrupt the flow of the site for a minute, so that perspective was brought back from all the political ramifications and warring views materializing about the oil and gas reserve that is being gobbled up from other countries to secure the resource for the United States.

This did not look good to me, as I looked back to the views of the terrorism being fought in another land, might have also held the security of these reserves to lives willing to be sacrificed. That's all I wil say about this, and holding these thoughts, I wanted to continue to speak to that subject of quantum gravity regardless of the tragety taking place on our globe. I won't assignthese values to a God, becuase the science is still very compelling to me that we are limtied as always from a wquantum mechanical perspective that weather itself produces.

So without these views on weak field measure I undertsood now that in my mind, this process was not needed in looking at the dimensinal valuation aldeberger and others are doing, becuase we can measure this gravity in ways tha we are not accustomed too.

It is not bad a reason now to consider that this Thalean view although very wrong for our current day, I understood well "first principle" from his perspective was based on water. So to me finding this calibration point amidst the field qualites of a planet much greater in perspective to this ths beautiful globe of water, fresh water resources become critical issues with such large populatins covering the face of these land masses.

So try as you might to argue with me about the tangibility of a landscape one is painted inhow weassign the relativity measure to our features of water pervasive ness amidst mas detrmination of hills and valleys. Thsi was a conceptually success in my mind even while good science minds are embroiled inthe requiremets of how to assign symmetry breaking froma supersymmetrical world, ther had to be some constant in thought. Some valuatin about th eidea of the landscape to make it applicable in how we loking at this functionin our world measures.

No where did I mention the perfect fluid of the strong coupling, but iwas very aware of the nedd for the quantum mechanical process to be addrssed conceptually. I of course from layman views am stl subject to mistakes inmy views but I struggle hard to over come these by continuing to learn and watch.

Here I would like to give credit to Clifford of Cosmic Variance for taking this discussin further, and the perception of Smolins for this integrative civilized discussion without invoking the Intelligent design issue. I have now gone past the resistance to landscape analogies to continue to perfect the view of a dimensional reality that few want to acknolwedge and deal with.

If indeed I wanted to assign transcendance to the computer world, the sentient being would be one that recognizes that a world in graphic resoluiton, had now paved the way for the Thalean group of mathematicans who Peter Woit mentioned. Might these people break the barriers of mathematicians from the world of theoretical into the world of physics.

I always had trouble understanding why theoretics would be so held in distain holding the mathemtic mind, but I understand this resistance when a personality would have been assigned, a ID classification, even though the physics had to be correlated in those same equations? They had to be able to operate at the edge, and continue on from that point.

So indeed this point of mass assignation, is indeed a troubling one, while I still see fluidity as a continous feature of supersymmetrical view? Such allocations of discretion were less then appealing, although necessary, as a measure of the depth of perception. So how do we resolve it?:) I am not sure either, but for some strange reason I can't let go of the view of a continous nature, when left to see decay as a measure of what existed in another state.

So of course we look for this trigger. This place where all might agree and if all created, started from such a place then how shall we assign our reason to what shall be the best way to proceed?

I wanted to add Lee Smolin's comments here.

Lee Smolin said:Of course if the theory is right-and we never assume so-we must show more. We must show that the ground state is semiclassical, by solving the dynamics. This is a hard problem, analogous to showing that the ground state of water is a solid. But as this is the focus of attention there are beginning to be significant, non-trivial results on how classical spacetime can emerge from a background independent quantum theory.

Friday, September 02, 2005

UV Fixed Point

Clifford draws our attention to further talks here in his post and directs us to what Jacque Distler has to say.

I must say this is a refreshing look with Jacques contribution to further the layman point of view. Such links are worth while in the advancement of the "sentient being" that Clifford might have thought the computer world could have developed into once we assign our geometries to that world, as we would of numerical relativity and the designs we get from this look. Thomas Banchoff should be commended forthis contribution to fifth dimensional idealism in the computer world, with the notion of graphics design as a whole new approach to this understanding. Who said mathematics guys are a little to abstract for the laymen view?

Jacque Distler:
Yeah. I had hoped I was being clear.

I meant a nontrivial (non-Gaussian) UV fixed point. A Gaussian fixed point would be too much to hope for.

Now you must know that to see what he was saying, "Gaussian coordinates" determined below this post helped me to relate what was being said here. But more then this the statement of Jacques orientates what might be further implied and what had missed in my thinking.

So just to carry on a bit with this point "P" in gaussian coordinated of frame of UV, what realization exists that we could not find some relevance here in the geometry to have further exploited the mind's capabilties by venturing into the Wunderkammern of thinking. By association, of Nigel Hitchin's "B Field manifestations geometries" to realize that althought these might be limited to what Jacque is saying , then what value this geometry if we can not see the landscape as something real in time variable measures?

That we might attribute a globe, that while spherical in it's design, holds much more in it's determination. That while it might issue it's electronmagnetic field of lines, that it too could have found greater relevance in the issues of Quantum gravity, with those same inclinations of time variablenesss, that I allude too?

What am I missing that such events held to the brane in fermion distinction would not find boson production off the brane, as real as, the topic of time variableness that we might issue in geometrical feature of a globe. A globe, that is very bumpy indeed. Is this thinking limited in terms of landscape valuation? Not only in terms of brane and fermionic response, but of the real live correlation of the topic of branes in a more realistic sense, held to these geometries?

While indeed such B Field Manifestation becomes real in tangibles in our arguement of where our UV perspective might be held too, then "P" becomes of value in time variablemess, as a landscape ideology spread throughtout the brane world features? While it is also intriciately linked to our formation of landscape futher out in the recognition of the bumpy world?

So while we might see this landscape in terms of photon calorimetric association with Glast, what value besides gauusian coordinate might be freed, when we see dimensinal sigificance being represented with Glast as well. Is this thinking wrong?