Michael Atiyah and the Geometry

Michael Atiyah:

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should
never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’.

I think it is hard sometimes to keep a global view about all the things that are included in this process, yet at some level, such geometries would have to be explained in relation, between the very small, and the every large.

So how would you take this advancement of all that Michael has talked about and included it in a real world picture? I am trying to answer this but am having difficulties. The words in support of the geometries had to be included in that global perspective.

plato Says:

January 10th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Your censorship of legitmate questions is not a very good practise.

If one had developed in that bulk perspective one would have gained in results, the question would have revealled this but you are are to quick with the button, protecting your point of view.

Has nothing to do with keeping the thread on track.

You'll notice which one he kept?:)

This was posted on Peter Woit's comment section that is censored continously serves no one but those who have drawn the line and any relation to the valuations attributed to bulk perspective. While I have been moving to this feature held in context of experimental basis developed in LHC and RHIC features, what pray tell has the extra dimesional scenario given to us, as we move beyond the idealization that Dirac gave to us for viewing in his equative understandings? Where is this beginning?

It was much more then this and the viewing with which I have become so intrigued that runs through the vein of all our discussions. This is the commonality as I am discovering, that has to have some basis, so that if you talk about "topology" how would this be comparative to our viewings of the universe and the events within it?

Do you see comparative functions as we relay our veiws of the microstate world and how such developements could have lead us all through GR to have come face to face with strangelets?

The bulk perspective is being exemplified, whether you are a Peter Woit or not, who wants to limit these views by casting doubt on any roads that lead beyond GR to the understanding of the inclusion of the microstate valutions from a geometrical consistancy. That comes from, the beginning and end.

If I keep the universe in perspective, am I holding the global perspective and including all that we have learnt. I certainly hope so.

We have to have explanation of the dark matter/energy scenarios do we not?