Wednesday, November 30, 2005

What First principle was-- was it the geometry

I thought I would contrast this quote of Dirac's with the one of Feynman's.

You see the very idea of a constancy that spread through all Maxwell's equations was a necessary one which allowed Einstein to move into positive and negative valuations within the geometries? So did Dirac know how this was to be approached?

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.

‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on Physics, v3, c18, p2.

Paul Dirac Talk: Projective Geometry, Origin of Quantum Equations Audio recording made by John B. Hart, Boston University, October 30, 1972

The quote below is in response to Dirac's comments


"One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER] the fact that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and because of the general way in which things at that time had to be explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him. Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps. This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."

So the question might have been, how this was viewed and what the result was through such a axiomization? What was the first principe here? Was there one that became the guiding principal?

I mentioned the compass for Einstein, as a modelled perception that grew into the later years, but here, we might have seen the beginnings Feynmans toys model for such geometries?

Monday, November 28, 2005

Foundations of Mathematic

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beautya beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.
--BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

In a Question below, is it worth it, to look at the context of what groups who gather might spark to the rest of society(click on it)? Look at what it has done for myself, and the reasons why such inductive/deductive features seem to be a part of the origins of cognitive functions that mathematically display itself?

Is there a theme in this regard through my blog that I had questioned earlier and links brought forth to raise awareness of what might have been implied in that true "consciousness sense" about the very nature of our involvement in the nature of reality?

But then too, awareness, about the death of such sensations. This is most troubling to me, if such model consumptions had made this impression then what had happened to the views as they exploded into the other realms? Other Realms? Why would I introduce Thales as a culminative vision about what could emerge and the father of geometry? Models make our view culmnative and increase the vision capabilites. Is there no one here that see differently after they had crossed a page to find that in our new tomorrows we see reality a little different now?

You have been touched at a most deep level, that goes beyond the death of such sensations as Toposense, or momentums of curvatures. A microscopic eye now, to the quantum nature, right next to your reading from this screen. It's in the air all around you, this potential? :)

Mathematics(logic?) and experiment?

I respond in that thread, and although it would seems disjointed from the rest of the commentaries, I thought I was talking directly to Sean's opening post. So I have linked the post on the very title as I have done with previous entires, as they have been setting the pace for my thinking about what views they share and what safety net is placed out there for us lay readers.

Would this impede my question as to the relation of philosphy in Sean's opening statement, to find that it had found a trail that leads to reasons why funding and perspective on it, should be thought about most carefully. Held in the esteem, with which one's adventures in physics and mathematics might have benefited society?

I understand this need for determination, and as well, the need to reaffirm what philosophy might hold in regards to truly active memebers of the science community and the projects they are engaged in. Would they have a distain for the philosophy of mathematics?

I left a question mark out there, and this question although never answered did see some slight comment in relation to the philosophy that where such logic might have gained in relation, being mentioned. I'll have to explain this some more so you understand that I am working hard to make sense of what is out there and viewed, whether in the tabloids, or what ever generalizations made by mathematicians, or the physicist who looks that little bit further.

Shall I quickly respond to the thread commetary or should I continue? I thnk it important that I respond to the comments rasied but I'll do this after by highlighting the area that spoke to me in relation to this train of thought.

I linked a quote from Plato on the idea of philosophy in my comment. I wil be moving from that position.

Philosophy of Mathematics

Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.
The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

You have to understand that although I am deficient in the math skills many have, it is not without effort that I am enaging myself in what appears to be beautiful and simplistic design when completed as a model. When we look at what the Wunderkammern had to offer in a revitalizing and dusting off of, models that were concretized for us. Did they lanquish until they were refurbished to the museums of time, so that we may again look at what mathematics has accomplished for us. In ways, that are very abstract and beautiful? What then exist as you gazed into the magnetic field, the dynamcis of brane held issues and the exemplification of design in those branes? It had to follow consistent and progressive developement in the physics of.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner

The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess. However, this is not our present subject. The principal point which will have to be recalled later is that the mathematician could formulate only a handful of interesting theorems without defining concepts beyond those contained in the axioms and that the concepts outside those contained in the axioms are defined with a view of permitting ingenious logical operations which appeal to our aesthetic sense both as operations and also in their results of great generality and simplicity.

[3 M. Polanyi, in his Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1958), says: "All these difficulties are but consequences of our
refusal to see that mathematics cannot be defined without acknowledging
its most obvious feature: namely, that it is interesting" (p 188).]

Social constructivism or social realism

Now here is the part, that while I saw the devloping nature of the tread of thinking and comments how would I answer and stay in tune? I previously spoke of John Nash and the inherent nature of mathematics as it could pierce the bargaining process, that to have this moved t a dynamcial social and constructive pallette developed in the ongoing relations of nations, why would such a scoial construct not be recognized as to the direction and strength of what mathematics might mean from a cognitive and developing brain that we have.

This theory sees mathematics primarily as a social construct, as a product of culture, subject to correction and change. Like the other sciences, mathematics is viewed as an empirical endeavor whose results are constantly compared to 'reality' and may be discarded if they don't agree with observation or prove pointless. The direction of mathematical research is dictated by the fashions of the social group performing it or by the needs of the society financing it. However, although such external forces may change the direction of some mathematical research, there are strong internal constraints (the mathematical traditions, methods, problems, meanings and values into which mathematicians are enculturated) that work to conserve the historically defined discipline.

This runs counter to the traditional beliefs of working mathematicians, that mathematics is somehow pure or objective. But social constructivists argue that mathematics is in fact grounded by much uncertainty: as mathematical practice evolves, the status of previous mathematics is cast into doubt, and is corrected to the degree it is required or desired by the current Mathematical Community. This can be seen in the development of analysis from reexamination of the calculus of Leibniz and Newton. They argue further that finished mathematics is often accorded too much status, and folk mathematics not enough, due to an over-belief in axiomatic proof and peer review as practices.

This gets very comlicated for me. Yet I recognize the inhernet pattern at the basis of these negotiatons and the games involved. More to follow, and short on time.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Aristotle and the Logic of the Natural World

Aristotle's logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. It did not always hold this position: in the Hellenistic period, Stoic logic, and in particular the work of Chrysippus, was much more celebrated. However, in later antiquity, following the work of Aristotelian Commentators, Aristotle's logic became dominant, and Aristotelian logic was what was transmitted to the Arabic and the Latin medieval traditions, while the works of Chrysippus have not survived.

First and formost one should be drawn to the very highlighted statement emblazoned at the top of this blog.

PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth"

I have to move quick forward here and reveal why the thinking is quite intense in terms of what such logic would have been revealling by "looking around you at what is." While I recognize this basis implanted in the natural world, such divisions arises from what had already existed. What we could accesss, as tangible realities of the ideas around us. "From whence they come?"

So maybe a list of the maths involved so far? If we can wrap these maths then what had we done from the perspective of the natural world? Would such creation of a new math help here?:) I have an idea, but all that thngs that currently exist and that will exist are already here. We just have to access them right? So what would support such adventures froma philosophy that had endured to realites of the natural process from the logic of a math? What math would this be?:)

  • Algebra

  • Geometry

  • Trigonometry

  • Calculus (single variable)

  • Analytic Geometry

  • Linear Algebra

  • Ordinary Differential Equations

  • Partial Differential Equations

  • Methods of approximation

  • Probability and statistics

  • Real analysis

  • Complex analysis

  • Group theory

  • Differential geometry

  • Lie groups

  • Differential forms

  • Homology

  • Cohomology

  • Homotopy

  • Fiber bundles

  • Characteristic classes

  • Index theorems

  • Supersymmetry and supergravity

  • K-theory

  • Noncommutative geometry (NCG for short)

  • So the idea is that Plato and Aristotle stand together, as a basis of what is happening in our world now. Between those of science and the resulting needs for experimentation. The roads to lead from the underlying avenues of philosophical thought, that would include math develoepment.

    Now how is this possible you ask? How is it possible such logic coud have been so revealling of nature that we would strive to find it's meaning in patterns underlying the nature of this reality, are actually abstract rules of engagement, that had been developed through philosophical thought? How so?

    If we look at the number of mayh creations what uses are these when moved into the basis is of the natural world? Would you not think these modes of thinking would be tempered by such logic, that math would find it's birthing as to the need for such expressions from this natural world?

    So part of the realization is that the creation of the math had to have already existed in the forms of natures response, and that such access gained to these ideas, are worth noting as a means to what already existed in nature. That is my logic:)


    So is there a method to the madness of all these tidbits of information that would wrap all of this in a easy way to divine the logic of the natural world? Is it beyond comprehension? I don't believe so, or why would I waste my time as a lay person, to move into this world of a higher standard of abstract thought and developing sciences, to wonder about the origins of the nature of this reality and the cosmolgical equivalent of asking what happened in that beginning of creation?

    Would it be so subtle that such logic woud have been driven to ask where this beginning was, and what roads had currently lead all these minds to this very question.

    Some act very safe, and walk safe ground, by what methods are currently tangible in our assessments, while other are quite adventurous. Some ask, that you stay in line, with current experimentation or suffer the wrath of deriving illusionary tales of ideas, that had not matured yet, as to the feasibility to what will express this logic of the natural world.

    Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"

    So mine is a simple philosophy, that holds complex variables. A simple painting, that holds a thuosand words?:) To me Math is like that, yet I am deficient in all the logic it had to bear down on the natural processes in this world. While my collegues are simple folk, I recognized the diversity of that group that Lubos and Clifford belong too. This is the origins of my statement. I understand as well, about the crackpostism that follows aether rejuvenation, yet I see the graviton as a member of that spacetime fabric.

    Is this enough to speak on the creation and fabrications we like to embue to that natural world? Is it enough to understand these concepts, and find such roads leading too, are the very fringes of what is known and came from a brighter light that shines from behind us, to those shadows on the wall?

    Friday, November 25, 2005

    Charlatan's Who Use Graviton?

    Are Gravity people Charlatan's?:)I certainly don't think so.:)

    well this is a good perspective with which one could move forward and explain it for us lay people here? :)

    Lubos Motl:
    The graviton is, on the contrary, an example of a correct derivation from semiclassical gravity - a legitimate approximate unification of GR and QM. Its existence follows from the theories we have, even given some degree of ignorance of quantum gravity at higher energies, and at the semiclassical level, it is absolutely analogous to the photon.

    The only difference is the value of the spin, the geometric interpretation of the graviton, and ultraviolet divergences from loops.

    I might have had wrong ideas here about what the graviton as a force carrier "proposed?" To exemplified what gravity a further extension of the theory of general relativity? Lubos sets it straight then on such joinings.

    This is the crucial difference between the dark energy and modified gravity hypothesis, since, by the former, no observable deviation is predicted at short distances," Dvali says. "Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects, and the leakage opens up a huge number of multidimensional detours, which bring about a change in the law of gravity."

    Dvali adds that the impact of modified gravity is able to be tested by experiments other than the large distance cosmological observations. One example is the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment that monitors the lunar orbit with an extraordinary precision by shooting the lasers to the moon and detecting the reflected beam. The beam is reflected by retro-reflecting mirrors originally placed on the lunar surface by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission.

    I myself might find it nice to have the origins of how this graviton came about. How one might be mistaken to have seen the bulk as a teaming with them(blackholes?), and such congregations telling, about places stronger then, while others are weaker.

    How telling is the photon as it travels through these spaces? What was the initial trigger that set things free as Hawking radiation? Some analogies there to consider as well:)

    So it would be nice then if one could find analogies that would sit well and sink deep. You know that the general public likes to think easy, and not finding relevant all the dressings of mathematical explanations. Or do they?

    Is it wrong to move so far ahead theoretically to be called a charlatan, by those who recognized the limitiations of experimentally proving it?

    Thursday, November 24, 2005

    The 5th Dimension and the Networld

    Hi Darwin,

    You thought my statement foolish, about Immanuel Kant?

    Instead of Darwin I thought maybe you might envision yourself as Aristotle, as you stand beside me, under the "arche.":)

    That what religion does is build concrete things, and so to models, for apprehension. If you stand and look at the room, why would I ever direct you to the picture on the wall? You have to draw back and take in a wider picure of what you see of Plato?:)

    To them, I said,
    the truth would be literally nothing
    but the shadows of the images.

    -Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

    Gerard t'Hooft, as well as Heisenberg, used comparative views establish from the Dialogues. These things were taken into the schools of learning.

    So by your reasoning, condensed matter physicists would be really happy to just deal with matter principles(whatever the building blocks of matter are?)The bottom up approach, while holography by philosophical attachment, should become irrelevant while we discuss the dimensional significance of where we are now in the networld?:)

    I am a student and learning, please be kind.:)

    Unity of disparate Pieces

    Even if you take the string theorists viewpoint that the energy may “leak” away into a brane instead of actually disappearing I think I’m correct in saying that you still need to ensure that energy is conserved regardless.

    Plato:While some might of thought it "dreamy," there is a direct physics correlation to that leaking in the collider. Although it is encompassed, like you said.

    So where did it go, and how is "it" encompassed?

    understanding the unity of disparate natural phenomena.

    So some people tried to form "new models" to help extend the way perceptions in science have always existed?

    In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings.

    While there was "particle states" to consider in terms of fermionic realizations, there was bosonic(force) interpretations that arose as well?

    If such states were considered in the colliders, then, what valuation would have seen the extension of what is leaking to have been encompassed? Here the onion signatures are relevant.

    Bulk Perceptions?

    While the "brane features" seem to answer this, what moved the ideas of bosonic interpetations as features beyond the colliders? This all had to make sense to me. So the history of the expansion of processes, have been altered much as you would look at sound? Gia's example of hitting metal plates, to sound created when billiard balls collide, to exemeplfy a greater understanding of what theoretics is doing here?

    Sound in relation to collision had a effect? It was this effect beyond the brane that was considered.

    How could such thinking have lead to such abstractions and analogies if the theoretics had not be connected in the consistancies that are required of science?

    As Maxwell equations were encompassing. As Einsteins theory of gravity was encompassing. By this methodology what came next? You has to understand this "tree of expression," in the modes of this thinking society "branched" to followed a format?

    Time-Variable Gravity Measurements

    As well as, the expansion capabilities of our brains?:) Osmosis, would have greater impact then:) From the ground up, as this tree grew? :)

    Wednesday, November 23, 2005

    Developement of Disbelief

    As you read, hold on to the thought about stringy/M theory developement.

    Richard Denton:
    I discovered that it was simply philosophy on its own that had played the very much larger role in the gradual erosion of belief.

    This is a interesting statement to me since some scientists might think that to have even included this in our "developing perspective" might have showed immediate signs of weakness? Evil?

    As if, math came out of all natural things, on it's own?

    So how did such views change us if we did not think about them more critically?

    See, I am not sure I like to think that there is "no God" that can be substitued by taking this power of belief outside of ourselves to religions and institutions. Crippling us, as to the empowerment we have for such changes in our own life?

    While we had seen the topic of "stringevangelism" introduced, there wasn't this concerted effort to make string as a all empowering "theory of everything( what underlying reality was referred too?)", even though, some would try to "invoke" these Godly powers of discrimmination. As a facist group, that would censor any views contrary to their own, as to what seemed, "stringevangelistic?" :)

    It then became the same institution, that it despises? Some might know who I mean here. If I stood up to it, could I change reality as well, as to that this group invokes into society?

    Anyway while I used Jo-Annes thread, "A little Bit of Heaven," to highlight this quality of earthly senses?


    This intuitive feeling that is generated once math processes are understood are realized in dynamical movement revealled in the brains thinking? Had to arrive from lessons it learnt previously? Pendulums, time clocks, great arcs, and gravity?

    I sought to internalize Gr's momentums, with Mecuries orbital patterns, or Hulse and Taylors expanding awareness of other things(gravity). I started to ask myself if this internalization was wrong? Is Topo-sense wrong? As too, intuitive unfoldments of the subject, in regards to Genus figures(holes)? Would it perish too? Revelations, leading to maths used?

    Internal developement would have revealled a greater core depth of the realities around us. Which are highly abstract, yet, could have lead to insight and convictions held in astronomy happenings in the cosmo(isomorphic relations?)? So this internalization developed conviction, with the basis of Gr's valuation of quantum mechanical things, to cosmological proportions?

    Strings as a model then, that could lead to perspectives with "langangian valuations" not only in terms of supersymmetry(concentration of a all pervading "beginning" that we could resort too,) as I espoused in Andrey Kravtsov computer's model.

    That such relations in our philosophical orientation of physics would endure in measure, culminate with "fineness" and valuations of gravity perspectives. Could you do this, without some model?

    So, would the "counter of belief in God," be the lesson the valuation of what one holds by introducing atheistic valautions, AS TO ROADS LEADING TO "COMMON SENSE?"

    While I used stringy comparison for examination, this leads back again to what models can be used to keep the human beings empowered, without stealing this away from them by such institutionalizations? Continued reflection, thwarted, as to no experimental valuations yet philosphically introduced. You remember the opening statement I used?

    I thought about the choices we make then, and the convictions we have. Would this have been irrelevant in our assessments of our own characters? After all, it would be you who walked back into society to think about the Smolins and Susskinds who would debate the essence of the backgrond?? What is understood, and what stringy needs to do?

    Sunday, November 20, 2005

    Music of the Spheres

    Strange Geometriesby Helen Joyce

    Both spherical and hyperbolic geometries are examples of curved geometries, unlike Euclidean geometry, which is flat. In spherical geometry, the curvature is positive, in hyperbolic geometry, it is negative.

    I thought I should add the "ascoustic variation" of the struggle for music in the world of "good and evil" as well.

    That such "chaos created" in the minds of our youth, would have been frowned upon in Plato's academy.

    By such reasonings and understandings of how such sound valuation may have been taken to spherical proportions? Should be no less then the consolidation points, as poincares distribution of eschers angel and demons pictures describe?

    What avenues had been less then discribed on those chaldni plates that they had been reduced to dimensional avenues discriptive of the chaldni plates, as a fifth dimensional understanding? Langrangian discription of points L1 or L2, and a visionary context of Sylvestor surfaces as proponents of B field manifestations as part of genus figures with holes?


  • Angels and Demons
  • Saturday, November 19, 2005

    Heaven's ephemeral Qualities?


    Basically, the view that everything is made of matter. But what is matter? Probably the most innocent and cheerful acceptance of it comes right at the start of materialism with Democratius of Abdera (in Northern Greece) in the fifth century B.C., for whom the world consisted entirely of 'atoms', tiny, absolutely hard, impenetrable, incompressible, indivisible and unalterable bits of 'stuff', which had shape and size, but no other properties, and scurried about in the void, forming the world as we know it by jostling each other and either rebounding (despite being incompressible) or getting entangled with each other because of their shapes. They and the void alone are real, the colours, flavours and temperatures that surround us being merely subjective. This model has lasted, with various modifications and sophistications right down to modern times, though the notion of solidity was causing qualms at least as early as Locke. But, in the last century, all has been thrown into confusion by Einstein's famous, E=mc2 and also by general relativity. Mass, the sophisticated notion that has replaced crude matter, is interchangeable in certain circumstances with energy, and in any case is only a sort of distortion of the space in which it was supposed to be floating. Photons and neutrons have little or no mass, while particles pop out of the void, destroy each other and pop back in again.

    'The Oxford Companion To Philosophy', edited by Ted Honderich. Oxford University Press, 1995

    Heaven in one sense, as a ephemeral quality(violet or blue), but in the gratification of savoring smell and tastes, these are not true bearers of the "quality of thought" are they? These sense are more.....earthly then?

    I struggle. :)

    If such senses are to perish, then what shall be everlasting? If intuition, is to only serve it's purpose until the math is adorned, then what shall this math be, in the state of the abstract mind(yellow)?

    An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.
    Srinivasa Ramanujan

    Ramanujan's thought about equation is emotively charged (red), that this too issues from such a mental abstract, as to be from heaven and descending?

    Wait! It's about heaven on earth? Really? :) Heaven is only a state of mind? (r/light)?

    Am I Okay on analogies then, to confuse the mind about these states of heaven, that I could have mixed heaven up, as to the varities of "time and segments," as our own colorful experiences?

    What song sung then, that each musical octave gain, and of loss is its own vibratory tone? Yet, it existed in the very fields of the sun, as a chemist combines?

    Friday, November 18, 2005

    A Clear Presence

    Can one miscontstrue your words even more? :)

    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.

    Jacques Distler:
    But the mere possibility of such surprises should not reduce us to labelling every as-yet-not-experimentally-verified statement to the status of mere “opinion” or rank “speculation.”

    While I am extreme with my "Angels and Demon" such comparative functions had not been limited too, the basics of such assumptions, but had indeed been dressed up by good science woman/man.

    We all like a good story. Those, in regards to time travel or Contact like movie(science that is consulted as to the edge of what theoretcial positions had beem pushed).

    Yet indeed even within the boundaries of work sciencetists bring here a division of what is hoped for, as a "reduced basis of assumption," could have been misleading as to the real science or not?

    Is it illusion that we play with, that we would want the purity of thought manifested on the public scene, as warped mentalities of what many scientists would disgust them? This "clear presence?" An "open heart clear mind."

    The story of Angel and demons has been misconstrued in science by very bright scientists, using the nature of right and wrong, as inherent features of negative and positive curvatures?

    Taken to mean this theoretics and that, are indcative anomalies of the good and evil in society. Is it political? Or shall we play with the very concepts and misconstrue them for what they really are?

    Raphael Rooms

    The fog is immmense and greatly hides the idea of this clear presence. Opening good hearts and minds as to the attempts to get rid of the illusions that would take hold of society? Allow the greater vision of perspective, a picture, that had been piecemealed, to raise a reality of what the picutre is painted on, the room it sits in, and what each parts of it, are telling the story about the geometers of the world?

    Thursday, November 17, 2005

    Angels and Demons

    Now how could such good thinking minds have not seen that the publics understandings might have been warped by the very underpinnings of good science men/woman, and all the issues become some fictional story for what evils and saints can do for us.

    So was it some distant function of creation that we should not recognize the negative effect of all "good things" that will emerge from the actions of what is revealled to us in our "rainbows and aurora's," that we would not seem pleased as to the emissions have to say in the wave forms that surround such things?

    Can we hope to use antimatter as a source of energy? Do you feel antimatter could power vehicles in the future, or would it just be used for major power sources?

    There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy "source". Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature: we have to make every particle at the expense of much more energy than it can give back during annihilation.

    You might imagine antimatter as a possible temporary storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than what you get back out of it. For antimatter the loss factors are so enormous that it will never be practical.

    If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

    So while good thinking men and woman dance with the ideas of Einsteins geometrical propensities to answer thse functions, what spherical relation would have said, that for every sun that burns out, it will rejuvenate itself, by strict geometrical functions in anti-matter creation to bring forth this "new vision" of the world.

    Create this wonderful unlimited resource of energies that exist around us now?

    So again let's take this back to the Pierre Auger examination of what is taking place outside of the collider expeirments. While it is nice to have these controls, why were we not informed about the potentiality of what exists as you pursue your visons to the very beginnings of this universe? That this beginning would take place right next to you? Is this wrong that we not assign astronomical valuations to the very nature of our world now, as such interactions take place between the sun and earth? That in those compacted dimensions, such calculations would reveal the thinking of relative and mathematical entities, as signals of the events that can take place everyday around us as well.

    Einstein was very revealling in what could be taken to a larger scale for what could split apart, so it is not so unlikely that ourvisions have been curtailled,just becuase we did not se the actions that could take plac ein a larger scenario?

    So did Heisenberg see what was revealling towards these geometerical propensities, as events unfolded themselves?


    if your foci is "string" enough, you might realize it is less than K=0 :)

    All M.C. Escher works (c) 2001 Cordon Art BV - Baarn - the Netherlands. All rights reserved.

    While some believe in positive curvatures they also understand that the inception could have a negative effect, yet it would not be "angel and demons" they espoused?

    We are all better then that, right? There is a "greater whole" we are each part of? To further extend this empowerment beyond "good and evil in religion" think of sound then, and the related entry below. Maybe, it will have a certain resonance for you?

  • Music of the Spheres

  • About how the brain's neuronic vitalities of vison are enhanced, and related?

  • Wunderkammern
  • Wednesday, November 16, 2005

    Paul Dirac and Geometrical Thinking?

    Into the Antiworld was originally staged at CERN inside the underground cavern that houses the Delphi experiment, in which collisions between electrons and their antiparticles - positrons - are studied. That setting must have been awe-inspiring, particularly as the show closed. The audience would have been whisked from the wonder and novelty of Dirac's theory over 70 years ago to the sophisticated particle physics experiments of today that the discovery inspired. At CERN, the curtain behind the stage ripped apart to reveal the Delphi detector the performance ended - but the gigantic photograph of the Delphi experiment that concluded the show at the Bloomsbury worked surprisingly well.

    Oh what fanfare and dance is given these genius's that we find the story ends with where the future begins.

    The Quantum Theory of the Electron

    Paul Dirac

    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.

    Can one distinguish something that is of nature as the basis of reality, and see this before it is algebraically written? Jacques mention where the intuitive lines ends and where the math begins.

    So from this statement then, it would have been impossible for Dirac to know what the matrices would look before it was algebraically written?

    If there is "no physics" and we are defining things from the horizon or boundary, then what geometry wil be revealing of this nature? Can it be concieved as it was by Dirac?

    I was thinking of Lenny Susskinds picture of the rubber band in his mind after working hard to mathematically understand. Did comprehension come by way of his mathe equations or by geometriclaly viewing?

    THE LANDSCAPE [12.4.03]
    A Talk with Leonard Susskind

    Einstein said he wanted to know what was on God's mind when he made the world. I don't think he was a religious man, but I know what he means.

    Albrecht Dürer and The Magic Square

    So the complexity of geometrical form would have been of value if we had seen the way that it might have taken that vision into the geometrical formations of spin orientated understandings? Isomorphic relations of the orbitals relations in cosmological events?

    Tuesday, November 15, 2005

    Oh My God Particle-Revisited

    I just wanted to drop this link here for now.

    The animation shows schematically the behavior of the gas molecules in the presence of a gravitational field. We can see in this figure that the concentration of molecules at the bottom of the vessel is higher than the one at the top of the vessel, and that the molecules being pushed upwards fall again under the action of the gravitational field.

    Gerard "t Hooft:

    The Holographical Mapping of the Standard Model onto the Blackhole Horizon

    Interactions between outgoing Hawking particles and ingoing matter are determined by gravitational forces and Standard Model interactions. 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.

    So we are still looking at the horizon here.

    In reference to the God Particle. This was first revealed in the 1991 Fly's eye experiment.

    Oh-My-God particle

    On the evening of October 15, 1991, an ultra-high energy cosmic particle was observed over Salt Lake City, Utah. Dubbed the "Oh-My-God particle" (a play on the nickname "God particle" for the Higgs boson), it was estimated to have an energy of approximately 3 × 1020 electronvolts, equivalent to about 50 joules—in other words, it was a subatomic particle with macroscopic kinetic energy, comparable to that of a fastball, or to the mass-energy of a microbe. It was most likely a proton travelling with almost the speed of light (in the case that it was a proton its speed was approximately (1 - 4.9 × 10-24)c – after traveling one light year the particle would be only 46 nanometres behind a photon that left at the same time) and its observation was a shock to astrophysicists.

    Since the first observation, by the University of Utah's Fly's Eye 2, at least fifteen similar events have been recorded, confirming the phenomenon. The source of such high energy particles remains a mystery, especially since interactions with blue-shifted cosmic microwave background radiation limit the distance that these particles can travel before losing energy (the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit).

    Because of its mass the Oh-My-God particle would have experienced very little influence from cosmic electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and so its trajectory should be easily calculable. However, nothing of note was found in the estimated direction of its origin.

    Why was it necessary to invoke God here as you did Wolfgang? This was around for some time, and now, such references have found their way into particle collisions perspectives? :)

    Quantum gravity is the field devoted to finding the microstructure of spacetime. Is space continuous? Does spacetime geometry make sense near the initial singularity? Deep inside a black hole? These are the sort of questions a theory of quantum gravity is expected to answer. The root of our search for the theory is a exploration of the quantum foundations of spacetime. At the very least, quantum gravity ought to describe physics on the smallest possible scales - expected to be 10-35 meters. (Easy to find with dimensional analysis: Build a quantity with the dimensions of length using the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's constant.) Whether quantum gravity will yield a revolutionary shift in quantum theory, general relativity, or both remains to be seen

    One needs to keep perspective on what is happening here, and as a layman, it is extremely difficult. Yet, do I seem to understand what these season vets are doing? More then just reading the NYT times for sure :)

  • The Fly's Eye and the Oh My God Particle John Ellis was instrumental in opening up perspective here. What is happening outside of collision reductionist processes of the colliders
  • Laying the Foundation with Respect

    It is most certain that at this point the public would have been left behind, so is there a way to bring perspective at this point on where you are now?

    I recognize the generalization and roads that lead to blackhole as a basis for considerations. What would draw ones atyemtion to this horizon. Lee Smolin in his book gave adequate discription that I just pointed out here.

    Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin, pg 171

    I know it might seem that if this conversation is now highlighting the intricacies of blackhole dynamics, then what exactly are you doing?

    By giving a visual map of the Bekenstein Bound this help to direct my attention to the mapping that had been going on theorectically here.

    Mine would definitiely be generalizations, but work by others lead to deeper insights.

    Conformal Field Theory

    A conformal field theory is a quantum field theory (or statistical mechanics model at the critical point) that is invariant under the conformal group. Conformal field theory is most often studied in two dimensions where there is a large group of local conformal transformations coming from holomorphic functions.

    So what "tidbits" had already been out there then that would help.

    Black Holes and Beyond:
    Harvard's Andrew Strominger on String Theory

    Quantum Micostates?

    The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

    While this is a past issue for most of you it is leading in the direction you are talking I assume.

    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 the 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

    Gary T. Horowitz and Juan Maldacena,

    The purpose of this note is to provide a possible answer to this question. Rather than the radical modification of quantum mechanics required for pure states to evolve into mixed states, we adopt a more mild modification. We propose that at the black hole singularity one needs to impose a unique final state boundary condition. More precisely, we have a unique final wavefunction for the interior of the black hole. Modifications of quantum mechanics where one imposes final state boundary conditions were considered in [6,7,8,9]. Here we are putting a final state boundary condition on part of the system, the interior of the black hole. This final boundary condition makes sure that no information is “absorbed” by the singularity.

    While there is no "apparent relationship(?)" between microstate blackhole production and blackholes what would make one think that particle collsions can be written as dual blackholes?

    Sunday, November 13, 2005

    Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev: The Law of Octaves

    Dmitri Mendeleev in 1897

    Courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of Pennsylvania Library

    Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleyev (Russian: Дми́трий Ива́нович Менделе́ев listen ▶(?)) (8 February (O.S. 27 January) 1834 in Tobolsk – 2 February (O.S. 20 January) 1907 in Saint Petersburg), was a Russian chemist. He is renowned for being one of the two scientists who created the first version of the periodic table of elements. Unlike other contributors to the table, Mendeleyev managed to predict the properties of elements yet to be discovered. In several cases he even ventured to question the accuracy of the accepted atomic weights, arguing that they did not correspond to those predicted by the Periodic Law, and here too subsequent research proved him correct.

    Now of course I have made some inferences here and who hasn't when it came to sound and it's values? I've explained this here.

    But by exploring the value of the geometric forms, of the square, and the triangle these were simplistic analogies to earth(matter) and the triangle (energy) By simple addition of both these forms, and by looking at the value of Octave=do, re, mi, fa sol la ti do, etc. There had to be a injection point for this octave to ascend?

    Now just take this as a story of the plot and look at what this plot is producing, not where science is, but of the easily converted analogies to the thinking of that sound in our universe can make to the elemental structure Mendeleev first sought out to map.

    So by joining the square and the triangle, we see where "four triangles" are produced inthe form of the pyramid.

    It also asks how can this idea of matter and energy have been sent to another octave, and hence an idealization of the Law of Octaves. So between mi and Fa, such injection would have lead any thinking to have wondered this associative function to what could transpire, if such a completion could have been modelled in the pyramid shape.

    Four primary triangles that reprsent the basis of the transmutation of energy from the four lowers states of matter considerations to the triangles, and the ascension of vibrations readily asseted to be in the most rarified of "matter forms (particle reductionism)" associative with energy at this peak?

    Proceedings of Societies [Report on the Law of Octaves]

    Mr. JOHN A. R. NEWLANDS read a paper entitled "The Law of Octaves, and the Causes of Numerical Relations among the Atomic Weights."[41] The author claims the discovery of a law according to which the elements analogous in their properties exhibit peculiar relationships, similar to those subsisting in music between a note and its octave. Starting from the atomic weights on Cannizzarro's [sic] system, the author arranges the known elements in order of succession, beginning with the lowest atomic weight (hydrogen) and ending with thorium (=231.5); placing, however, nickel and cobalt, platinum and iridium, cerium and lanthanum, &c., in positions of absolute equality or in the same line. The fifty-six elements[42] so arranged are said to form the compass of eight octaves, and the author finds that chlorine, bromine, iodine, and fluorine are thus brought into the same line, or occupy corresponding places in his scale. Nitrogen and phosphorus, oxygen and sulphur, &c., are also considered as forming true octaves. The author's supposition will be exemplified in Table II., shown to the meeting, and here subjoined:--

    Now such a colorful model of the pyramid to me in such oscillations mode seemed to reveall a dynamic form of color and it's variations. Is this what sound values of had left for us in our hydrogen spectrum mapped to see what energy valuation had occurred? The blacklines.

    So it was not long, that such idealization about the value of sound might reveal it's consolidational effect, as we compared low and high sounds of value, to this spectrum. That low sounds were very matter orientated(consolidated), while high sound were very revealing of the vibratory function of energy valuations seen at the peak of that pyramid? The height of enrgy valuations in relation to particle reductionism. So what would this pyramid reveal in the thoughts of all humanity then? Simple deduction form from model participation is all. It gave insight into the outward expression of these matters(body) fluid emotive forces, to mental states of energy valuations?

    I am not saying this is the way of it either, just that such a platform and model developememnt could have sparked other ideas, as Smolin so hopes might be revealled for further explorations into the new theoretical idea developement, to help us look at the way nature is.

    Mendeleev example is a case in point where such ideas and sound valuation seem to penetrate the mind as to the essence and nature of matter. How strange then I might be, to say, that in our very own hearts is the transition point between the lower centers of man(his earth nature), that such ascension of this vibratory thought formsanaogy of the triangle to energy) would be, held in the clear mind?

    But let's not forget some real science here.

    The beam of positively-charged ions generates a slight magnetic field that interacts with an externally-applied magnetic field. The net result is that the trajectory of a charged particle is curved to an extent that depends on its speed (determined by its mass). When the beam of a mixture of isotopes of different masses falls on a photographic plate, the different isotopes converge at different points, corresponding to the different radii of their semicircular paths.

    The mathematical equation that describes this phenomenon is: m/e = H2 r2 /2V, where m is the mass of the ion, e is the charge of the ion, H is the magnetic field strength, r is the radius of the semicircle, and V is the accelerating potential.

    Saturday, November 12, 2005

    The Future of the Book

    I have definite ideas about the future in this medium Clifford.

    First let me say, that Indymedia was the first introduction to "real time" reporting aside from TV network medias distributors. If you could bring other perspectives to the realites of our world, then indeed media in terms of pictures, live video shots, could help you present more ideas to the public.

    How much of a effect does this have?

    One might talk about blogging and the effect it has about giving power to the individual in the street to prersnt views from the front lines. Has been well along in it's developemental stages. I am just presentng a safe scenario and the pushing of the envelope to considerations of laws about copyright/copyleft? To bring this dynamcial world of the internet into a responsible forum of the development of minds.

    If one knew the fog that is created in life, askes for the Clear MInd, then where shall we begin? A Tibetan might ask for a priest at his bedside(Tibetan Book of the Dead), so that he can walk the indivdidual through the trepidations of a "material world" as one is dying. To help one realize to this Clear light?

    It had to begin then that if minds are going to involve themselves in a sphere of personalities, then they should be well prepared for how this developmental process is evovling our consciousness. How historical figures are part and parcel of the history of the world on another level that we do not see? Rings around this planet? Rings around us? What is the color of your mind?

    My mind goes back first though in a historical sense to Gamow. I know most do not like to live in the past, but this sets up certain ideas about the future. The freedoms of expression. The developemental idealization of a free society, and not one held too.

    Most of us know who Richard Stallman is right?

    The GNU?

    I was thinking of the Cathedral and the Bizzare, Netscape and Microsoft, and how this developement is moved to ideas about the creative commons and the desire of what that "future book" should be?

    Making Prisons for our Children's Minds

    The dangers of being held into Doom conspirative games while introducing story forms for a pro-active idealization about "using toys" to encourage destructive attitudes? Locking our childrens "minds" within rooms of destruction? Predators who prey on our children.

    Future of Blogging

    In one sense the idea about the pictures and how they are implemented in these blogging articles, and the way html works from blogging to weblog. The future of the mind of the internet

    We seen Jacques's disgust with the way you see things in Word Press and the way they end up appearing? Uiversal html directtives applicable to all blogging software

    The limitation put on those who would like to use imaging, but are cut out because of the adminstrative duties held for Cosmic Variance Little Rascals. Here in this blogging sphere, will others be allowed to post their pictures?

    What is this future that our minds are evolving too, as we sit at the desk and find others of like mind across from us. Have entered the world of personalilites and have left the planet for another type of world?

    Thursday, November 10, 2005

    Timaeus:Laying the Ground rules on Genesis

    You all know that you each have a respective hand on the elephant, and thsoe who would contribute their qunatum mathematics are new comers to what had already existed. As the craftsman Plato, I created the elephant in the thought of the man for this time:)

    Genesis Timaeus 27c-34a

    Sometimes as you read my dialogues you discover the flavour of individuals who had passed through these readings, and in selected words, highlighted the logic with which they would highlight my approach, and speak about science and the way of it?

    Had I known that when I wrote this dialogue that minds like Einstein, or a Hooft would travel through these sections, I might then of assigned the "Craftsman" to different people here, as they developed the models of the world, with which this process speaks too.

    Let me pick an example then for you and say that this perspectve I select holds one accountable, and recognizes that in this case it is becoming and perishable. A I highlight a section for you and you read you will understand.

    Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

    Is not, as John would like us to have believed? The "soccer ball" is dead, but not my Platomic form. It will remain, and live in the hall of the infamous, as a model of the way the world is created? It's underlying nature? It's "to be," as a Shakespearean thought would also have it's "infliction" on my very own words.

    But let me first clarify some things here before I loose myself amongst all mmy writings, as it is difficult to retain the mind of individuals in the characters of these dialogues so that the discourse is found relevant in ways of a future, as I have first shown thus.

    First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.

    Now let me say that if you are to define the rules of the game, then it will be that each would come from their corner, and from these distinctive positions, bias themselves to what I had always laid first before you.

    So the ground rules had been laid long before any of you would speak on the ideas of emergence or not, first principle or not, and the defined shapes or not?

    So by these implications you have to then known the logic with which you would approach this discourse with science and all who have used my dialogues :)

    Lee Smolin:
    -Stick to the issues raised. If someone raises a criticism, whether its done according to your standards of rhetoric or not, just answer the substantial science issue. Don’t waste our time with discussion about anything else. Don’t respond to a criticism on a specific point by changing the subject.

    -No personal attacks, absolutely none. If someone has a Ph.D., then they are credentialed. Discuss with them in good faith and with respect.

    -Let’s strive to agree on facts before discussing interpretation. Insist on precision and honesty, don’t allow exaggeration, and admit it gracefully when you are wrong or when the evidence does not support something you would like to be true. If someone questions the status of a claim, don’t say “everyone I respect believes X is true.” Say, X is in fact unproven, but there is evidence for it, which is exactly the following….

    -Listen carefully to those professional colleagues who read the evidence differently from you, and try to understand sympathetically and in good faith, why they do so.

    -Restrain your own communities. Make it clear that it is not acceptable to you when those in your committee insult others or publish or post things that are exaggerated or false. If someone insists on behaving badly, it is up to their community to restrain them. Make it clear that repeatedly treating colleagues disrespectfully in a public forum amounts to professional misconduct. The same is true for repeated cases of knowingly exaggerated or misleading statements in a public forum.

    If we can all agree to some basic rules like this I am optimistic that we-and science- will come out better from the debates ahead.

    While Lubos has some ideas of his own here, then it seems fair that we should work on these "ground rules" so that each understands that when they step on stage, they had both agreed to the plot that would take hold of science for all to see.

    Lubos Motl:
    These rules are, first of all, a proposal for a complete and thorough politicization of all of science. The first point is that personal integrity (or scientific integrity) is a very subjective thing that a person simply has or has not. And people will never agree whether certain things have been honest or not.

    So if Lee Smolin, sets the "ground rules" while Lubos seeks to develope clarity from position and Clifford the stage, then we would know that your bias's would have to be put aside, in order to proceed. Previous conversations failed, Lubos and Lee:)I have watched your respective positions and felt Lee's feelings on trying, but never really succeeding, to adventure respective positions as one would have put it on stage. The Krauss issue timing is impecabble not for book publicity gain but for how one were to develope the scripts of science in dicussion.

    At these meetings of mind, the idealization had been first spelt out in my story of Timaeus, now it is your turn as "to be" the Shakespeare, Einstein or t"hooft would be.

    Monday, November 07, 2005

    Sum Over Histories

    So how does all this come together into a physical theory? It turns out that the proper procedure is to construct every possible diagram allowed by the theory (for a given state of input and output particles and how they're moving) and add up the corresponding complex numbers. The result is essentially the "wave function" for that specific input-output state combination, and by squaring that number you can determine the probability that the given input will result in the given output. Doing that is how theorists at particle accelerators earn their keep.

    Principal of Least Action

    Edwin F. Taylor

    The least-action principle is an assertion about the nature of motion that provides an alternative approach to mechanics completely independent of Newton's laws. Not only does the least-action principle offer a means of formulating classical mechanics that is more flexible and powerful than Newtonian mechanics, [but also] variations on the least-action principle have proved useful in general relativity theory, quantum field theory, and particle physics. As a result, this principle lies at the core of much of contemporary theoretical physics.
    Thomas A. Moore "Least-Action Principle" in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Physics, John Rigden, editor, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996, Volume 2, page 840.

    Java programming by Slavomir Tuleja
    Text by Edwin F. Taylor and Slavomir Tuleja
    Draft of March 12, 2003

    Here L is called the Lagrangian. In simple cases the Lagrangian is equal to the difference between the kinetic energy T and the potential energy V, that is, L = T – V. In this interactive document we will approximate a continuous worldline with a worldline made of straight connected segments. The computer then multiplies the value of (T – V) on each segment by the time lapse t for that segment and adds up the result for all segments, giving us an approximate value for the action S along the entire worldline. Our task is then to move the connected segments of the worldline so that they result in the minimum total value of the action S.

    Sunday, November 06, 2005

    So Let's have some Fun

    Now of course, the time travel issues are always quite endearing, because good thinking minds can come up with a imaginative way to travel. What stories are these, that are created?

    Back to the Future




    So maybe you have some "ole or new," that you would like to add to the list?

    So we know too, that these versions were based on some "historical view" that came from the basis of math? Who is this, that derived and made room for such issues to materialize so imaginatively?

    Welcome to the companion Web site to the NOVA program "Time Travel," originally broadcast on October 12, 1999. In the program, leading physicists delve into the mystery of whether time travel is possible, and if so, how one might go about building a time machine. Here's what you'll find online:

    So let's go back in time a bit.

    Ronald L. Mallett
    Department of Physics, 2152 Hillside Road and UniÍersity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
    Received 19 January 2000; accepted 3 April 2000
    Communicated by P.R. Holland

    The gravitational field due to the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving the linearized Einstein field equations at any interior point of the laser ring. The general relativistic spin equations are then used to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle at the center of the ring laser. It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial frame-dragging. q2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

    Van Stokum cylinder by David Darling
    A time machine based on an immense cylinder spinning at near-light speed. The physicist W. J. van Stokum realized in 1937 that such an object would effectively stir spacetime as if it were treacle, dragging it along as the cylinder turned. What van Stokum didn't realize is that circumnavigating such a cylinder can lead to closed time-like paths. Anyone orbiting the cylinder in the direction of the spin would be caught in the current and, from the perspective of a distant observer, exceed the speed of light and thus travel back in time. Circling the cylinder in the other direction with just the right trajectory would project the subject into the future. The van Stokum time machine is based on the Lense-Thiring effect and uses ordinary matter but of enormous density - many orders of magnitude greater than that of nuclear matter.

    And some general comments:

    The century-old dream of time travel remains one of our greatest control fantasies—irrational and irresistible, supremely conducive to megalomania, born of morbid curiosity and mortal dread. Barring the odd literary anachronism (Rip Van Winkle's big-sleep displacement, the Connecticut Yankee's Camelot stopover), it wasn't until 1895, when H.G. Wells unveiled The Time Machine, that the concept crystallized in the public consciousness, spanning nuts-and-bolts mechanics to abstruse metaphysics.

    Saturday, November 05, 2005

    Gott Time?

    Okay Clifford, enough's enough. Some of like to be genuine and eloquent in our speech as well. So I'll try my best.

    You had to understand that without this inductive/deductive topological sense, this would not help one to identify what Greene is saying. You had to know what this represent in our valuations of time as we look throughout the universe? Etc, etc, etc:)

    Brian Greene:
    it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ...

    I notice this comment previous about Richard Gott. I returned to my archives in the internet world for information that I had already cataloged. How and why, I will not say right now, but it is about the prospect of the "future" and about where we had been in our "past."

    Imagine then--and put aside the engineering problems for a moment--a machine big enough to walk into. As you would walk forward within the confines of the light beam, (see diagram below) you'd have the impression of moving forward, but because of the space-time vortex, you'd actually be moving backward. You could walk back through time--maybe even passing yourself as you entered the ring.
    (does this sound familiar Steven?)

    So who is Richard Gott, but first, some of you good readers might recogize what Sean has to say about time travel?

    Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel through Time

    The notion of closed timelike curves in the real world is hard to reconcile with our intuitive understanding of causality. Perhaps one can find global solutions to general relativity incorporating closed timelike curves. These, in effect, would be time machines. But it may be impossible to construct such a system in a local region of space. Theorems along these lines were proved by Frank Tipler in the 1970s. Tipler assumed that the energy density was never negative and showed that closed timelike curves could never arise in a local region without also creating a singularity. This was reassuring, as we could hope that both the singularity and the closed timelike curves were hidden behind an event horizon (although this was not part of the proof).

    Now I spoke in regards to the name of Ronald Mallet for a reason, other then to insight hope into people, and tell them to disregard the color of skin. That the mind still works in all it's wonders whether in a male or female, black, white, yellow or green. Okay, so I went to far in the color dynamics, but you get my jest, eh?

    Of how disadvantaged views, will create color in our world perceptions. We just have to rise above this(step back from the experience)and put it into perspective. The sameness with which all of us have in this humanistic valuation of character and such, arising from a historical past. Are your words your own in the makeup of advice you give, or is it from the mother and fathers, as parents who speak through you?

    Will We Travel Back (Or Forward) in Time? by RICHARD GOTT III

    Einstein proved we can travel forward by moving near light speed. Backward requires a wormhole, cosmic string and a lot of luck
    Do the laws of physics permit time travel, even in principle? They may in the subatomic world. A positron (the antiparticle associated with the electron) can be considered to be an electron going backward in time. Thus, if we create an electron-positron pair and the positron later annihilates in a collision with another, different electron, we could view this as a single electron executing a zigzag, N-shaped path through time: forward in time as an electron, then backward in time as a positron, then forward in time again as an electron.

    So no, it is not just about going back in time and finding out where we reiterate the views embedded within our own consciousness, but show, what has happened to the individual as a inductive/deductive feature progresses forward in time.

    Do such loops work in our makeup? Trust me when I say it is extremely difficult to change what has already happened in terms of our historical experiences. Yet, the advancement of views in that future when meeting that historical past, is the new mode of experimental basis. Which we will in this case refer to as scientific sensibility? How many reminders do we actually need on what is "reality" and what is fictional?

    So lets say for instance, that in Young's experimental travel of the photon, having going into the nether world, what path had it taken, to become the backdrop on that screen? It had to incorporate signatures and we all understand the Hydrogen spectrum do we not? The Electromagnetic Spectrum?

    Ah so we understand do we about leaving signatures? Yes this is part of the history I am talking about. Have I extended it metaphorically? Yes, you betcha.

    You have to embed this kind of thinking in order for foundational perspectives to change the way you perceive life on a grander scale. Not egotistical evolution, but of one that model consumption does to you about how we open new doorways to insightfulness and change in what we had always perceived?

    From Experience to Metaphors on Cosmic Variance

    Most of you know who Alice is Right? Well Alice isa fictional story for those of you who don't know, the story of the Looking Glass has become synonmous witha a photon's flight into Young's other side.

    I do not think I am held in to high a esteem, although my work and struggle has been to pierce the veil of illusions that could mistakenly take one down the wrong informational path. So the title above is quite fitting in a professional sense I guess. But yes I will persevere, to try my best and show historical context of where we have already been, so people understand this has not just been be a one night stand with science, but a life long one, without credentials.

    So what did I mean by writing this following comment? Withn this comment I created this link here, to fast track people to today's culminative views on what Alice is now witnesssing from her metaphorical world.

    I like your article Sean.

    Even Penrose had to seek the help of Escher.

    I mentioned Alice briefly in relation to the photonic journey, but realistically this adventure from mathematics to the fabled story has indeed capture the mind in what Alice is doing today. You see?

    Spooky action at a distance has been extended from to issues of quantum entanglement, yet in it’s history, this was the world on the other side(Hyphephysics has a geometrical valuation in algebraic geometry(NOn communitative)?

    So “piece meal” physics of imagination and experimentation, has move the metaphorial mind to consider “other experiments” as you suggest in this extension.

    Yes there are dangers as well. But these are eliminated once engaged in the reality makng process.

    Alice in Wonderland, A real World Fantasy

    By creating the link in the picture above I am directing attention to what has historcally come out of that past as well as directing the mind to consider how math derivatives can blossom into dynamical situations, in representation not only of Feyman's toy models, but of what Lewis Carroll did in hs mathematical state of mind, to purposefully generate consensus in a fictional model.

    The Looking Glast

    To a World on the other side?

    I mean for me it was a interesting analogy to have considered that if a photon was emitted through what value would all these paths be, if we were to see what arises on the screen? Young's experiement wa sindeed quite interesting to consider. So had I define the spac eand journey that photon could take?

    So we have these people now who are working on one aspect of Cern and the LHC that will look at how Alice, now becomes witness to the wonderfuls works of a long string of researchers, scientists who are coming together to create this reality. But does it end with Cern. Of course not. The very title I imparted to Glast or Glass, highlights this continuance and effort to measurte early universe information and the design of the calorimeter is crucial here.

    So let me fast track again for you to the Alice of Cern, to now engage what Glast has accomplished. These trains of thought have no one other then myself to consider, because it was in my not understading these issues that I moved into the world of science and laid myself open to the shots that good men and woman would have, about the lessser in knowledge, and those who had not earned the "right to speak?" I am outside academia, looking in:)

    So what do I do without trying to infringe on copy right but enlist pictures and quotation from article such as this that follows to direct attention to such accomplishements. Such that are culminative from a fictional and fantastical world derived from some early history. Is it myth that I create or the contued updating of what had been accomplishe by such iteractive feature of events inthat early cosmo to what is evident in the calorimetric view today. We had set the parameters of such interactions that we now have a model whch we will use inthat satellite. We will witnes the SR views that Smolin and other sare being tuff with before ever entetaining the completed version of GR as a extension of geometrical realites set in a hyperdimensioal sense. That is not acceptable to them?

    Second Glast Tower Installed By Matthew Early Wright

    GLAST has started to take physical shape with the installation of the second tracking tower last month. Now the team can perform the first tests ever of multiple towers in the grid array. Researchers expect to learn much about how the towers and the analysis software will cooperate to eventually produce sharp images of the gamma-ray sky.

    So I understand why Smolin and others like this road to confirmation of early universe considerations and tangible proofs to the realities of interactive phases taking us as close as they can. Why such a pricipal based in SRian revolutions are quite acceptable to them becuase of ths science status seen there.

    Shall we disavow the roads to theoretcial developement then, or shall we say, that all fictional stories have a basis to them? The real world functions, roads that lead from? What basis are these then in our exploratory views?

    Well I have shown one year's worth. If you check my dates of two image links, where the Alice pictures are involved. Does it mean, that I have not been paying my dues as the years have passed? On the contrary, the internal motivation does not need approval or to be paid, for it is more of the interest I have in this reality, to explain nature's hidden aspect and views of alternate pathways. INductive/deductive pulses, to develope forward, and grow with where society is currently housing these scientists in their endeavors.

    Yes I might be the pizza man behind the counter, or, the individual that sits next to you on the airplane. I may not sit at your dinner table, but I am, and have been host to the family. The extended family, that although not on par with the scientific updatea nd talk in a communal dialogue, injects humour, and tidbits to spark the wonder in their own observational eye about life.

    How we can greatly effect those around us, by example, and quiet invisibility, by the images and impacts that we can inject into that same family called society. But really this is just a sample view about one aspect of reality that scientists have to offer.

    There are indeed unscientific views that are made up in our individuality. As emotive forces that act as undercurrents and "emotive" society. Could these be wild in my speculations, that the world is much like "this Onion" to have said, these are culminative views about a planet whose consciousness is developing in stages as well. That global perspective would have assigned hotspots in the world of color valuations, in that same global warring perspective? Color then, would be very dynamic, if we changed our views on how we see the world in other foundational perspectives.