Perhaps the highest density known is reached in neutron star matter (see neutronium). The singularity at the centre of a black hole, according to general relativity, does not have any volume, so its density is undefined.
The most dense naturally occurring substance on Earth is iridium, at about 22650 kg·m-3.
A table of densities of various substances:
So of course seeing this new posting and the ideas of what the gold nugget "is," is supposed to be here in our thinking is of course. Being clarified in terms of how we look at the LHC, most defintiely. Having expert opinion on this is always important. for sure.
Fool's Gold ?
Who is not without some blemish on the "heart values" when it had been held to a goal like truth, and had gone astray? It just matters that you try, and that you hold this value in front of your eyes, as you progress through life.
I was at a loss for what would describe "this beginning" and having looked at what is attained in the "Pascalian triangle", how could I not learn of the spiral induced numbers that lie at the very heart of such creations.
You have to understand what the basis of what this triangle is based upon. I gave clues here.
Some fractorial mathematical based idea, exposed to the matters, as crystaline objects of perception unfolding? Wolfram?
NPR's Richard Harris reports on the beauty of mathematics
How are some things built, that you would ignore "the mathematics at the basis of experience." Having such a geometrical basis is very important. I may call it "Algebraic equations" of Dirac(Lubos take note:), but it is more then that, and it is in the emergence of strings, that we recognize where the conditions are, as the strings basis? You had to understand "the entropic" as well as the CFT issues from the blackhole state? What are the initial conditions?
If I say microseconds, you should immediately assume it is after the big bang.:)Topological "geometrics" eh? :) is much different, then what we see classically of the 3+1? You remember "Klein's ordering of the geometries," of course? Right?
Gold in the Landscape?
I was looking for a specific posting on "Fool's gold" so I thought of Clifford's at Cosmic Variance and the post he created. A specific comment that I made. No, this does not imply anything against Clifford. :)
Here you might refer to the points between Lubos and Bee, about the "initial conditions?" It's "beyond" the placement of what is held in microseconds, and the arrow of time. What! Before time began?
So where is that? What already existed?
However, don't be fooled! The charm of the golden number tends to attract kooks and the gullible - hence the term "fool's gold". You have to be careful about anything you read about this number. In particular, if you think ancient Greeks ran around in togas philosophizing about the "golden ratio" and calling it "Phi", you're wrong. This number was named Phi after Phidias only in 1914, in a book called _The Curves of Life_ by the artist Theodore Cook. And, it was Cook who first started calling 1.618...the golden ratio. Before him, 0.618... was called the golden ratio! Cook dubbed this number "phi", the lower-case baby brother of Phi.
What a Cosmologist Wants From String theory by David Wand
I mean have tried to instill a good foundational perspective of what happens, and what is percieved, in terms of the joining of microsperspective views in regards to the nature of the cosmo?
So what is not revealled here in "my thinking" although we have been directed to the process of the "collidial views" imparted by expert opinion and further glossed by Q's blog building to face this thinking process? :)
A debate/dialogue is always a good thing to initiate, and I have not be too lucky to have somebody to run against my thinking. It's a relief Q. As you say, "I am looking for truth."
So where I am going to go from here? :) Should I go?
Well science has this thingy about experiment and beyond that, beyond the standard model, what thinking shall I introduce? Something "beyond the 3+1" perhaps? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment