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.


  1. Plato,

    The formula you quote from general relativity relating density, hubble and gravity constant is false.

    This is not an error in general relativity.

    It is the incompleteness of general relativity.

    When you put the mechanism of gravity simply in there, you see that there is no gravitational retardation.

    You also see that the formula you give is wrong. The cosmological constant is superfluous and the actual density is proved to be exactly a factor of (e^3)/2 or 10.04 times lower than the critical density.

    This does away with dark matter and dark energy also, as the mechanism by which surrounding push causing gravity, prevents distant receding universes nearer time = 0 from being slowed down (asymmetry).


    Ref: mechanisms with accurate predictions

  2. Should read: .... distant receding MATTER ...

  3. ‘Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together! Here at Padua is the principal professor of philosophy [Professor Cremonini] whom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And to hear the professor of philosophy at Pisa [Professor Giulio Libri] labouring before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky.’

    – Letter from Galileo to Kepler, 1610 (Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, London, 1913, Chapter 4).


  4. How about sleeping?

    You Remember Crab Cakes?

    You remember this picture?

    Ah, very good.

    Now you see this conversation?

    While I look at the sensibilties over such a propositions, I am some awe struck over this. I'll tell you why in a second.

    Is there "reason" to prevail amongst the clamour of the crowd control Peter Woit seeks?

    A new hero of CANONICAL science who is going to guide our every view. Finally some one like this emerges.

    Now the ole rehtoric, has taken on some credibility?:)The value f the talk not the "same ole same ole"

    But I have digressed from my point of view and the reasons why Dilation is so important in how we see? What fun you made of Randall views about the brane world.

    From my perspective and I could be wrong, Kravtsov in simulating computerized generations helps one to see how such a scene, in Crab cakes, helps to orientate views even within the idea of a critical density value held in context of the global perspective of our universe. A event?

    Now do you see what I am saying, yet, if not I will clarify somewhat more for you, so you see my position on supersymmetry. The perfect fluid?

    Patience, as I said, as time clocks are very much different on the globe, and being 150 degrees of me, coordination is not easy, to respective times and points of view.


  5. Supersymmetry is not tied to graviton based quantum gravity. It may or may not explain the unification details of the Standard Model. I think it is a good idea, but there is no evidence for supersymmetric partners yet, and they will be of very high energy. There is evidence on my page for gravitational mechanism. It is unethical to ignore entirely something with evidence TODAY, while promoting gibberish which may turn out right or wrong when more experiments are done in the future.

  6. If you understood the "jet production" for the overall geometrical propensity of cosmological actions, you might say, oh, let me look at how such anti-matter is created and what use this idealization can have from a reasonble geometric propensity of such overall actions being demonstrated.

    So you look for models in which to ascertain this geometric nature.

    This to me is the tell tale sign of consistancy model apprehension that is hidden within the strings allocation and movement to Mtheory revelations. If you did not see it and it was hidden from you, then I respect what your statements are, from the position you hold.

    You had never thought about it either from my position, yet I know very well that such symmetrical breaking is being looked for? And that, there are no rules at such quantum realities for such geometries to emerge but this trail is being blazed.

    As Smolin is doing, and his call for consistancy in experimentation leading to Glast positions. He wants us to be carefull and responsible like you do, or Peter Woit, and not "cynical" about how one might "see?" and what is being asked of that responsibility.

    This leader of educational values has left his mark in procedural synoptic valuations, for the public, as has Greene, which you have depised?

    As well as, any indications that might lead to a better comprehension of the string valuation, and growth along side of pHysics? It is indeed not empty the space as some might think and from that basis, the space has it's strength's and weaknesses?

    We just had to move from the SRIan positions adopted, to other theoretical idealizations. Do they work and are they consistant? You bet they are.:)

    You see very well in terms of the mathemctial symbolizations, yet my views have "wrapped" your total perspective.

    Supergravity would be a good thought to consider and how this might be percieved in plasmatic relations. This is my continuing education.:)

  7. Dear Plato,

    Your comments on geometry and gravity seem to show the problem I face. There are two separate problems in gravity mechanism work, apart from the lack of time.

    First, making the mechanism crystal clear, so that it is easy to take in quickly. Other people don't have time to read a lot or sift through technical discussion.

    Second, overcoming the normal hostility to any innovation.

    I've added an extra geometric picture which seems to capture the essence of the whole gravity mechanism, without any extra details:

    You can see a small version of this diagram beside my name on this post!

    Bests wishes,