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:)
No comments:
Post a Comment