Boltzmann's Brain

There is a new article by Dennis Overbye in the New York Times called, Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?

It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.

If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.

Source: Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology

Alway part of the process is to find within my own site information that I had collected to help me understand where Ludwig Boltzmann comes into the picture in the above article.

Now of course I go over to Cosmic Variance's version of Boltzmann's Universe where the article above is referred too.

I look at the discussion that is taking place and try and put the exchange and points raised in mind so that I can understand as best I can "the jest" of the problem and the jest of what people are saying.

This isn't an attempt to rewrite the article, but to open the door to a better understanding of what is being portrayed.

Sean:lylebot, this is basically the point of the post — if the universe is a fluctuation around thermal equilibrium, then no matter what you condition on concerning our present state (including literally everything we know about it), it is overwhelmingly likely that it is a random fluctuation from a higher-entropy past. Even if we have memories apparently to the contrary!

The Universe and Irreversibility

Now it is quite loosely put together in my head that I went searching to try and understand the context in which the universe was placed in accordance to the state of equilibrium.

In equilibrium, the entropy of the system cannot increase (because it is already at a maximum) and it cannot decrease (because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics). The only changes allowed are those in which the entropy remains constant.

See: What is the entropy of the universe?

The Perfect Sphere

Before I begin I had to mention the following two entries below that I wanted to do but was short on time.

This recording was produced by converting into audible sounds some of the radar echoes received by Huygens during the last few kilometres of its descent onto Titan. As the probe approaches the ground, both the pitch and intensity increase. Scientists will use intensity of the echoes to speculate about the nature of the surface.

I am following behind on the different posts that I wanted to write. One of them in relation to the descent of a "measure gatherer" (sounds primitive doesn't it?) and the sound values produced from that "descent on Titan." Can make it "sound ancient" while current research is of value.

Almost, as if one is a cave dweller blowing dried paint over their hands, could possibly be thinking of fire and rays cast while their own shadows made them think of a sun that can enter the cave, and chains that need to be broken from thinking so circumspect..:)



The second one I wanted to talk about was in relation to Themis and the Aurora Borealis. The labels will hopefully help with my previous research that I had done as well as other perspectives that allowed me to see this sun earth relationship. Quasar has currently dealing with that topic further in "Coronal Mass Ejection" as well and Backreaction entitled, "NASA launch of THEMIS Satellite."

Anyway on to the essence of this post and why it is troubling to me. Many would not know what goes on in my head as I am currently looking at the relationship of the Bose Nova to the jet productions that issue from such spiralled tendency. Accretion disc and the idea of such spiralling, to a pipe that follows to making anti-matter productions?

See Water in Zero Gravity, by Backreaction
How did this all arise? So you see such an idea of the sphere in a vacuum is a point from which to begin the search for things that were not there before, so we now know that such collisions can indeed produce "new" information?

The action taken, although seems related to what Arivero is saying, and of course I already have much on this in terms of Han Jenny, and the taking of the Chaldni plate to spherical relations. As an experiment with a "balloons and dyes using sound" similar to "sand on that same chaldni plate."

The Perfect Sphere and Sonoluminence.

Taleyarkhan.A second internal inquiry has found no evidence of misconduct.Credit: Purdue News Service

Purdue University officials today announced that a second and final internal inquiry has cleared bubble-fusion researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan of all allegations of research misconduct. "I feel vindicated and exonerated," Taleyarkhan says. "It's been a pressure cooker for about a year." But controversy surrounding Taleyarkhan's work isn't likely to die down any time soon.

Taleyarkhan is the chief proponent of the controversial notion of sonofusion, which suggests that sound energy can collapse bubbles in a way that yields more energy than was initially put in (ScienceNOW, 4 March 2002). Last year, an article in Nature reported that several of Taleyarkhan's colleagues at Purdue were upset by their encounters with him, suggesting that he allegedly obstructed their work and tried to stop them from publishing results that contradicted his own.

There has been some contention about the results, but this is far from what I wanted to show in terms of the geometrics involved. Patience as to the energy produced from this interaction of "sound on the surface transferred inside" to cause a spherical collapse.


Experimental apparatus used by the team at the University of Stuttgart. PMT = photomultiplier tube, PZT = piezoelectric transducer. Picture credit: Physical Review Letters

German researchers have measured the duration and shape of a sonoluminescence pulse for the first time. Sonoluminescence - the emission of light by bubbles of gas trapped in a liquid and excited by sound waves - is one of the most puzzling phenomena in physics. Although first discovered in 1934, physicists have yet to discover the underlying light emitting process.

Seeing the tensorial action on the bubble moving sound inside, I had wondered about how such a collapse could increase the temperatures involved to produce this "super higgs fluid." Lubos Motl never gave this much thought and I of course am impressionable when it comes to the science mind. I could not shake it.

Ultrasound can produce temperatures as high as those on the surface of the Sun and pressures as great as those at the bottom of the ocean. In some cases, it can also increase chemical reactivities by nearly a millionfold.

So we "assign fluids" as one might the "vacuum in space" to illustrate what we have as our way with these bubbles? These claims have not been fantastical other then what the science had been designed for, yet I am drawn to the schematics and geometrics.

So yes the ways in which the size of the blackhole could all of sudden collapse is critical here, to producing further results in what is required of the new physics? So looking for "such experimental processes" is always part of my resolve to understand the geometrics involved.

Please be patient while I am learning.


Axisymmetry is also broken in the fluid bells, which assume the form of polyhedra

See further information in regards to Broken Symmetry.

So the idea here that was troubling was the way in which the symmetry was broken in terms of the fluid flows demonstrated by the Broken Symmetry examples.

My perception is much different here in that the dynamical relation of "the super fluid", may have it's correlation in the Navier stokes equations. This is by "insinuation on my part." How preposterous such a thing to think that the conditions had to be "spelt out first" in order for us to understand the "new physics" beyond the standard model?

Navier-Stokes Equations

The Navier-Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, are a set of equations that describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases. These equations establish that changes in momentum in infinitesimal volumes of fluid are simply the product of changes in pressure and dissipative viscous forces (similar to friction) acting inside the fluid. These viscous forces originate in molecular interactions and dictate how viscous a fluid is. Thus, the Navier-Stokes equations are a dynamical statement of the balance of forces acting at any given region of the fluid.

Using the geometrical basis of my thought pattern established as a point in a circle, or a point with "no boundary", it seems it is very difficult to talk about the universe if one does not include the way in which such dynamicals can perpetuate the energy within this system.

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

Thus too, the understanding, that if you turn Einstein's equation E=mc² inside/out then what had you done? All "matter states" have then been assigned a energy value? Qui! Non?

Plato:

Layman scratching head while faceless expression of Boltzmann puzzlement takes hold?

How is one suppose to find "a equilibrium" in such a "low entropic state?"

If we were to experimentally challenging any thinking with "relativistic processes" how could they have ever emerged out of the BB? Maybe, it was a "highly symmetric event" for any asymmetry to show itself as "discrete measures" defined in relation to the "energy of probable outcomes?"

Where did such reductionism begin for us to ask about the "cross over?"

We needed high energy perspective to realize that we were still talking about the universe. Are there any other processes within the cosmos that can be taken down to such rejuvenated qualities to new universes being born that while the arrow of time is pointed one way, that the universe itself allowed such expression to continue in the expansion rate, and the speed up?

A Higg's fluid? Something had to be "happening now" that would dictate?

Forgive me here for my ignorance in face of those better equipped.

So you are looking for "this point" where things cross over? It is highly supersymmetric, yet, we know that such matter states have been detailed and defined as "discrete" asymmetric matter states.

I made a comment above that needed to be looked at again so I am placing it here while it suffers it's fate in another location. The basis of the argument is an ole one indeed that has long been exchanged by Smolin and Susskind.

Now it is again one of those things that I am trying to make sense of while one could go off in a philosophical direction. While the "facts of the matter" and experimental results dictate my thinking here.

It's the fault of that ole' Platonic thinking, and the Pythagorean basis of the universe in expression thingy. The universe is very dynamical geometrically while one debates the essence of inflation and disregards what allows such an expression to bring "other ideas" into the fold. How this "eternal idea" can bring other factors in terms of the speed up into consideration, while one ponders why such a thing is happening?

Neutrino Oscillations? Hmmmm.......

Oscillating flavors The three neutrino mass eigenstates are presumed to be different coherent superpositions of the three flavor eigenstates (ne, nm, and nt) associated with the three charged leptons: the electron, the muon, and the tau. There is good evidence that only two of the three mass eigenstates contribute significantly to ne. In that approximation, one can write

Just another fancy way of looking at CNO and the law of Octaves? :) While some thought space was empty, there were aspects of that space "which was alive" regardless of the asymmetrical realization of the discrete matters?

I'm trying here. You needed a background for it?

The triple alpha process is highly dependent on carbon-12 having a resonance with the same energy as helium-4 and beryllium-8 and before 1952 no such energy level was known. It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who used the fact that carbon-12 is so abundant in the universe (and that our existence depends upon it - the Anthropic Principle), as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance. Fred suggested the idea to nuclear physicist Willy Fowler, who conceded that it was possible that this energy level had been missed in previous work on carbon-12. After a brief undertaking by his research group, they discovered a resonance near to 7.65 Mev.

Now I am not pro or against anything, just trying to make sense of the disparity of such anthropic reasonings. So what processes in Cern reveals such an idea? Muons?

What's that saying? The devil is in the details :)

So we want to define our relationship with the world in some computerized method? It has always been something of a struggle to explain how one may see the world as they lose the focus of distinctive sight and hearing and soon realize that if they are all amalgamated, you might get this idea of the gravitationally inclined atomized in some computerized process? Feelings?:)

You finally learnt something about yourself?

A thought crossed my mind. A fictional story?

It’s interesting what calorimetric measure can do when you are looking at cosmological events. So, the photon becomes descriptive in itself?

Of course speaking of Glast here. Building alliances?


Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself?

You are working “to set” the course of events? So we have this description then of the universe and it’s “phase transitions.” It’s behind the “value of the photon in it’s description and escape velocity” and it’s value also “gravitationally linked?”

So technology now stops the photon in flight? We can then “colour our views with the gravitationally inclined?”:) A “philosophical take” on new computerized development with feeling?

The leading computer technologies here is not to diverge from what I moved too in terms of understanding the human condition. This is very important to me, and includes not only our biological functioning, but our resulting affect from the physiological one as well.

So while "you think" I hope to chart the colours spectrally induced oscillatory universe from the "photon stop over" and subsequent information held in that abeyance. Sure it's a story of fiction right now, but in time I would like to see this connection to reality.

It may only rest at this time in conceptual framework that was constructed from what was available in the physics and science at our disposal, while I had to move forward slowly.

It was important to understand why there would be such divergences in perspective and how these would be lined up? Some of course did not want to take the time, but it was important to me to understand the "philosophical position" taken.



One could just as well venture to the condense matter theorist and said, what building blocks shall we use? One should not think the "history of Platonism" without some "other influences" to consider. Least you assign it to a "another particular subject" in it's present incarnation? An Oscillatory String Universe?

So the evolution here is much more then the "circumspect of the biological function," but may possible include other things that have not been considered?

Physiologically, the "biological function" had some other relation? So abstract that I assigned the photon? So I said "feelings," while Einstein might assigned them to a "short or long time" considering his state of mind? :)

More thought of course here on the "fictional presentation" submitted previous. As a layman I have a problem in that regard. :)

So no one knows how to combine thermodynamics and general relativity? Hmmm....Boltzmann puzzle..hmmmmm...and I slowly drift off in thought.

Our work is about comparing the data we collect in the STAR detector with modern calculations, so that we can write down equations on paper that exactly describe how the quark-gluon plasma behaves," says Jerome Lauret from Brookhaven National Laboratory. "One of the most important assumptions we've made is that, for very intense collisions, the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to hydrodynamic calculations in which the matter is like a liquid that flows with no viscosity whatsoever."

How does relativity ever arise out of such a situation? If "tunnelling was to occur" where would it occur, and where would "this equilibrium" find comparative Lagrangian relations in the universe? These perspectives are leading to what we see in the WMAP polarization patterns?

Are there not "comparative features" that allows for the low entropic states, within the existing universe? Allows us to return to those same entropic states in their respective regions, while "feeding" the universe?

You had to look for the conditions that would be similar would you not? And "supporting evidence" to explain the current universe speeding up. These conditions would have to support that contention.

I am holding off producing any new posts until I can bring the discussion to a suitable ending where Lee Smolin admits the ideas are not yet completed in terms of of our understanding of the landscape?

Clifford has a good humour post about real estate in the extra dimensions. Of course you had to follow other discourses here to understand how one may view what is "current in the thinking?"

This "balance in perspective" is not just one or the other but on how such perspective is formed around it. So on the one hand you have this Anthropic approach in string theory, and then you have the "philosophical differences on the other?"

Your trying to explain it and in so doing revealing the train of thought that was established. One does not disavow the road leading to the physics established of course, and no where is this intentional on differing perspectives

Lee Smolin: "Here is a metaphor due to Eric Weinstein that I would have put in the book had I heard it before. Let us take a different twist on the landscape of theories and consider the landscape of possible ideas about post standard model or quantum gravity physics that have been proposed. Height is proportional to the number of things the theory gets right. Since we don’t have a convincing case for the right theory yet, that is a high peak somewhere off in the distance. The existing approaches are hills of various heights that may or may not be connected, across some ridges and high valleys to the real peak. We assume the landscape is covered by fog so we can’t see where the real peak is, we can only feel around and detect slopes and local maxima.

Pattern Recognition

Strominger:

That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

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.

I mean sure we can say to ourselves, "that one day I was very ignorant" and I had all these speculative ideas about the "Golden Ratio," but then, I learnt the math and the truth of it all?

But while we were being crazy......?:) Ahem!

Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion - Hindu Goddess of creativity. In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.

In "past life bleed throughs," it was very important to realize that while speaking in context of "overlapping," the underlying archetecture allowed for expression of those different interpretive assignments I had given. These were significant for me, because it help me to realize the "mapping" that we can unconsciously have revealled in such "experience dream/real patterns," that had one not be aware it, would have escape one's notice as a mundane realization.

You had to understand how "geometrical seeing" is held in context of Dirac's wording, to know that this tendency to draw lines at the basis of consciousness, was also evident in Feynman's toy model construction. It is something that we do, do.

So what did I learn?

1. That it revealled a model for consciousness, from the reality of the day, to the transcendant.

2. That it housed an experience in the way it can overlapped using "1" as a central pattern of emergence.

3. That present day models now use this schematic are psychologically endowed in speculation(liminocentrically structured), but has a basis in fact, as I am showing it here.

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

What sense would any of this "cognitive idealization" make, if one did not have some model in which to present, and know, that it was the underlay of all experience, and that the time of our day, might see us use it in topologically in different ways?

I used Sklar for this example.

But more then this what use is "Pascal Triangle" if we did not understand the emergence of "patterned numbers" from some initial beginning and cognitive realization, had we not recognized Pascal's model intepretation?



With no know emergent principals, or geometry arising from inside the blackhole, it was important that the basis of expression be realized as a pattern forming recognitive valuation? Is it right? I am not sure, but part of the developing model application had me wonder about how we could have encapsulated the cyclical nature of, what was collapsing into the singularity, was now actually, the motivational force for the developing new universe?

When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.

So it was important to know the basis of D brane recognitive values, in how the blackhole is interpreted?

Collapse of the Blackhole

String theory grew out of attempts to find a simple and elegant way to account for the diversity of particles and forces observed in our universe. The starting point was to assume that there might be a way to account for that diversity in terms of a single fundamental physical entity (string) that can exist in many "vibrational" states. The various allowed vibrational states of string could theoretically account for all the observed particles and forces. Unfortunately, there are many potential string theories and no simple way of finding the one that accounts for the way things are in our universe.

One way to make progress is to assume that our universe arose through a process involving an initial hyperspace with supersymmetry that, upon cooling, underwent a unique process of symmetry breaking. The symmetry breaking process resulted in conventional 4 dimensional extended space-time AND some combination of additional compact dimensions. What can mathematics tell us about how many additional compact dimensions might exist?

One of the chief features that have caught my mind is the way in which extreme curvature might have been enlisted to take us a to a place where the infinities have been curtatiled to a way of thinking. You need a model in which to do this, if you are to think that the events in the unverse are to be considered out of what the pre big bang era might have entailed had ths action been defined properly?

So immediately one see's the benfit of cyclical unverses being developed as well as understanding that the particle reductionistic views were well within the range to consider superfluids as part of the working of this interior blackhole? How did one get there?


Kaluza-Klein theory

A splitting of five-dimensional spacetime into the Einstein equations and Maxwell equations in four dimensions was first discovered by Gunnar Nordström in 1914, in the context of his theory of gravity, but subsequently forgotten. In 1926, Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up in a circle of very small radius, so that a particle moving a short distance along that axis would return to where it began. The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This extra dimension is a compact set, and the phenomenon of having a space-time with compact dimensions is referred to as compactification.

So first and formeost gathering a perpectve that could immediate take us into the understanding of how these circles could ahve gained value in conceptual models. Of course every one wants the truth and mathematics is saying okay where the heck do we find the matematics that is so pure that by the very means enlisted would take us from the states of superfluids and their capabilities?

Strominger:

That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

So it is very important that if such views are taken down to these extreme levels that some method be adopted to maintain what might have emerged from the basis of the reality where such pure states as superfluids, may have simplified, immmediate symmetry breaking as arisng from some geoemtrical method?

The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to grvaitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the toal field.

Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein

Lubos reminds us in the "strominger linked statement" about the understanding that there is no physics, but I would like to work towards gathering perspective as I am to lead us to the theory in the thinking. What concepts made this thinking valuable might have arisen in the previous years might have found itself explained over and over again.

Where does the pure mathematics changes it's form?

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

The drive to tke this down to such levels of perception and wipe away all the faces of our concepts seems a hard struggle yet I think it a very capable thing in any mind that would move to the forms of pure math? What are these?

Such a simple psychological thinking that would have maintained our views, and find that enlightenment is just a few short steps away. Some mathematics might emerge that will unfold into our everyday world that wil bring together so many things?

So from where in all the probabilstic states could such thinking reveal the smoothness of topological fucntions and relayed the working of all the states havng been reached in the blackhole? Travels of the circle measured in te radius of that same cicle gives inherent energy valution to the concept of the blackhole being multiplied to seeing the macroscopic view of the universe having been driven to it's current state?

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So what particles will have emerged from such a process and we find ourselves facing the gluonic phases of sight, and what level should we assign these energy values in relation to the supersymmetrical state now recognized, and moved from in the symmetical breaking that is to be accomplished?

It is from these positions as I am making them clear, that even in face of the perspective shared by the Krausss's and Woit, that the continued efforts of LUbos and all the young minds might do as Peter Woit askes and bring the demands of the recognition of things, that emerge from this process, into full regalia.

For those who were skeptical, hopefully this sets up your minds as to what is being accomplished, and what is being said, is quite beautiful. I find this process very beautiful indeed.

Merry Christmas

What are those Quantum Microstates

Now two points occupy my mind that hold questions as to what and how such counting can be done in terms of geometric propensity, that would allow these geometries into topological states. First point is:

Lubos Motl said:

We need to get closer to the "theory of everything", regardless of the question whether the destination is a finite or infinite distance away. (And yes, the path should not be infinitely long because there is no physics "below" the Planck length.)

And the second:

Black holes and branes in string theory

But it has been discovered through string duality relations that spacetime geometry is not a fundamental concept in string theory, and at small distance scales or when the forces are very strong, there is an alternate description of the same physical system that appears to be very different.

So what then would say that non linear approaches would now have taken form in our talks, that what was once geoemtrically feasible, had been taken down to the length where no new geometry is involved. So lets see then how shall we verbalize what happens at the horizon, in terms of radiation, that such states never existed to make this possible?

Now there are always reasons that one moves into the historical to gain perspective. By doing this, you gain insight and advance thinking to reveal theoretical developement, and where it has taken us. So by using thse linked paragraph statements, we are revealling something about Blackholes that had been culminative, to have discussions in todays world. Like BPS blackhole dynamics.

Andrew Strominger is an American theoretical physicist who works on string theory. He is currently a professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Society of Fellows. His contributions to physics include:

Now one thing that troubles me about Lubo's statement, is the idea that supersymmetry valuation could ever be entertained, had we not consideedr this avenue of some importance. Not just in terms of symmetry breaking, but of the illustrous states of existance, that would exemply this idea where the superfluid could rest itself, and provide for the base of operation for these new universes?

To the second point, by providing for the idea of a geometry to emerge from this vast ocean of vast probabilites. Again for me, to see this I recognized that "space is not empty", and that such a congregation of gravitonic perception would have to be culminative, in some form for such a superfluid to exist?

So one had to get there geometrically from this ten dimensional perspective to have some basis to fuel developement into other stages of existance. Some geometric form, that would reduce, such valuations to supersymmetrical thinking and allow such a developemental process to cyclical natures. of that same universe.

Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

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.

So indeed then three conditions had been satisfied, that issues about the physics involved had something to say about quantum mechanics, gravity and computation of entrophy of blackholes respectively.

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.

What is black hole entropy?

Suppose we have a box filled with gas of some type of molecule called M. The temperature of that gas in that box tells us the average kinetic energy of those vibrating molecules of gas. Each molecule as a quantum particle has quantized energy states, and if we understand the quantum theory of those molecules, theorists can count up the available quantum microstates of those molecules and get some number. The entropy is the logarithm of that number.
When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.

Microstate Blackhole Production

Peter Steinberg

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don't make a "real" black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase's point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a "dual" black hole. But what does "dual" mean in this context? It's not "two-ness" in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

Microstates and Gravity

Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.


I was scanning over at Sean Carroll's blog and noticed his current article. It seems he is doing some kind of exorcism?:)

Entropy and intelligence

Consider the following system: a rectangular container filled part way with tiny spheres, some of them made of glass and some of brass. All the spheres have equal size, but the brass ones are heavier than the glass ones. Okay, now please tell me which of these configurations has the lowest entropy (or highest order, or greatest complexity, or whatever it is that you think only intelligence can bring into existence):

Now what was appealing to me here is the question of arrangement, and how chaotic systems might have been ruled by other consequences? Like gravity. So troubled by the analogy presented and distancing myself from some satanic feature of intelligent dsign, I wonder, what is going on here?


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.

Now if I was to wonder about what would govern these thoughts, then indeed the question is raised that such intelligence is governed by a organizational ability that evolved from a better understanding of these graviational influences?

I am a junior here so the idea that such a exorcism would have been dispelled in this attempted has me wondering. Is there some greater design here in elminating the abilities of capable good thinking people and spooky actions, that have defied explanation?

A nice airplane ride is always fruitful to higher forms of thinking here? Time clocks, still exemplify some characteristics on molecular arangements? As well as Einstein and liethe impulsive qualites that such characters appeal to the scolastic heroes of our time, we are drawn by some inexplicable force to wonder about natures way?

Self Organization of Matter

Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

See:

Quantum Microstates

Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623 – August 19, 1662)

Born in Clermont-Ferrand (France), the young Pascal was introduced to mathematics and physics by his father. So precocious was his talent in these disciplines that he published his innovative Essai pour les coniques [Essay on conics] in 1632, at only sixteen. In 1631, he moved to Paris, where he frequented the intellectual circle of Marin Mersenne (1588-1648)—a forum for the discussion of the most topical scientific and philosophical questions. In 1644, he became interested in the technological aspects of scientific research, devising a calculating machine that could perform additions and subtractions. In 1646, he conducted path-breaking research on the vacuum and fluid dynamics. He devoted two major works to fluids—Équilibre des liqueurs [Equilibrium of liquids] and De la pesanteur de la masse d'air [On the weight of the mass of air]—written in 1651-1654, but not published until 1663. In 1653-1654, he composed some brief but seminal papers on combinatory calculus, infinitesimal calculus, and probability. Pascal repeated Evangelista Torricelli's experiment, using various liquids and containers of different shapes and sizes. This research, in addition to the publication of Expériences nouvelles touchant le vide [New experiments on the vacuum], culminated in the famous experiment performed in 1648 on the Puy-de-Dôme, in which he demonstrated that atmospheric pressure lessens with an increase in altitude.

In parallel with his scientific pursuits, Pascal displayed a deep and abiding concern with religious and moral issues. In his youth, he espoused Jansenism and began to frequent the Port-Royal group. These contacts form the background to the Lettres provinciales (1656-1657) and the Pensées (published posthumously in 1670).

I had to lay this out before I continued to speak to the world Lubos motl directs us too. In a way, these mathematical pursuance and comprehensions, are revealing, when they speak to the greater probability of discovering the root systems mathematically as well as philosophically. Cases in point, about compaction scenarios are self explanatory when it comes to energy determination and particle reductionism . This relationship to idealization of supergravity, points thinking to a vast overall comprehension suited to the culminations of a model employed such as string theory?

But back to the point of focus here.

Earlier derivation of Pascal's thinking, "are roads that even he was lead too," that we have this fine way in which to speak about the root of mathematical initiative, and these roots leading to mathematical forays into the natural world.


Diagram 6. Khu Shijiei triangle, depth 8, 1303.

The so called 'Pascal' triangle was known in China as early as 1261. In '1261 the triangle appears to a depth of six in Yang Hui and to a depth of eight in Zhu Shijiei (as in diagram 6) in 1303. Yang Hui attributes the triangle to Jia Xian, who lived in the eleventh century' (Stillwell, 1989, p136). They used it as we do, as a means of generating the binomial coefficients.

It wasn't until the eleventh century that a method for solving quadratic and cubic equations was recorded, although they seemed to have existed since the first millennium. At this time Jia Xian 'generalised the square and cube root procedures to higher roots by using the array of numbers known today as the Pascal triangle and also extended and improved the method into one useable for solving polynomial equations of any degree' (Katz, 1993, p191.)

See I am somewhat starting with a disadvantage because buried in my head is the reasons for describing math more then it's intuitionist valuation in computer generated idealizations. It all of a sudden brings into perspective a deeper sense of the possibilities and probabilities?

Here I am quickly reminded of Gerard t'hooft, and the thinking, about reductionistic views of information in computerized versions. Philosophically how can we have reduced information to such sizes and find the world a much more complex place. Would we not realize that such intuitionist attempts too have to undergo revisions as well?

A Short History of Probability

"A gambler's dispute in 1654 led to the creation of a mathematical theory of probability by two famous French mathematicians, Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat. Antoine Gombaud, Chevalier de Méré, a French nobleman with an interest in gaming and gambling questions, called Pascal's attention to an apparent contradiction concerning a popular dice game. The game consisted in throwing a pair of dice 24 times; the problem was to decide whether or not to bet even money on the occurrence of at least one "double six" during the 24 throws. A seemingly well-established gambling rule led de Méré to believe that betting on a double six in 24 throws would be profitable, but his own calculations indicated just the opposite.

Shall we quickly advantage to a age of reason where understand well the beginnings of mathematical systems and lead into Boltzman? But before I do that, I wanted to drawn attention to the deeper significance of this model appreciation.

Discovering Patterns



While we get some understanding here of what Pascal's triangle really is you learn to sense the idea of what culd have ever amounted to expressionand this beginning? Did nature tell us it will be this way, or some other form of expression?

So overall the probability of expressionism has devloped the cncptual basis as arriving from soem place and not nothing. True enough, what is this basis of existance that we would have a philosphical war between the background versus non background to end up in stauch positional attitudes about how one should approach science here?

So to me, I looked for analogies again to help me understand this idea of what could have ever arisen out of string theory that conceptually mad esense . Had a way in which to move forward, with predictable features? Is their sucha things dealing with the amount of information that we have in reductionsitic views. These views had to come to a end, and I will deal with this later.

Of course now such idealization dealng with probabilties off course, forces me to contend with what has always existed and helps deal with this cyclcial nature. You have to assume soemthing first. That will be the start of the next post.

But back to finishing this notion of probability and how the natural order of the universe would have said folow this way young flower, that we coud seen expansionism will not only be detailled in the small things, but will be the universe, in it's expression as well?


The Pinball Game

The result is that the pinball follows a random path, deflecting off one pin in each of the four rows of pins, and ending up in one of the cups at the bottom. The various possible paths are shown by the gray lines and one particular path is shown by the red line. We will describe this path using the notation "LRLL" meaning "deflection to the left around the first pin, then deflection right around the pin in the second row, then deflection left around the third and fourth pins".

So what has happened here to force us to contend with certain issues that the root numbers of all things could have manifested, and said, "nature shall be this way?"


Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906)

In 1877 Boltzmann used statistical ideas to gain valuable insight into the meaning of entropy. He realized that entropy could be thought of as a measure of disorder, and that the second law of thermodynamics expressed the fact that disorder tends to increase. You have probably noticed this tendency in everyday life! However, you might also think that you have the power to step in, rearrange things a bit, and restore order. For example, you might decide to tidy up your wardrobe. Would this lead to a decrease in disorder, and hence a decrease in entropy? Actually, it would not. This is because there are inevitable side-effects: whilst sorting out your clothes, you will be breathing, metabolizing and warming your surroundings. When everything has been taken into account, the total disorder (as measured by the entropy) will have increased, in spite of the admirable state of order in your wardrobe. The second law of thermodynamics is relentless. The total entropy and the total disorder are overwhelmingly unlikely to decrease

So what has happened that we see the furthest reaches of our universe? Such motivation having been initiated, had been by some motivator. Shall you call it intelligent design(God) when it is very natural process that had escaped our reasoning minds?

So having reached it's limitation(boundry) this curvature of the universe, has now said, "such disorder having reached it's reductionistic views has now found it's way back to the beginning of this universe's expression? It's cyclical nature?

This runs "contray to the arrow of time," in that these holes, have somehow fabricated form in another mode of thought that represents dimensional values? This basis from which to draw from, had to have energy valuations missing fromthe original expression? It had to have gone some place. Where is that?

But I have digressed greatly, to have missed the point of Robert Lauglin's principals, "of building blocks or drunk sergeant majors", and what had been derived from the energy in it's beginning? To say the complexity of those things around us had to returned our thinking back to some concept that was palitable.

Why the graduation to ISCAP, and Lenny's new book, is the right thing to do

(LEONARD SUSSKIND:) What I mostly think about is how the world got to be the way it is. There are a lot of puzzles in physics. Some of them are very, very deep, some of them are very, very strange, and I want to understand them. I want to understand what makes the world tick. 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.

The thing right now that I want to understand is why the universe was made in such a way as to be just right for people to live in it. This is a very strange story. The question is why certain quantities that go into our physical laws of nature are exactly what they are, and if this is just an accident. Is it an accident that they are finely tuned, precisely, sometimes on a knife's edge, just so that the world could accommodate us?

Emergence= Phase Transitions of Symmetry?

Witten said:

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist's suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

Part of the difficulty was realizing that the end result of a current depiction of the universe, and the reality around us now, had led us to assumption discrete manifestations of a earlier prospective universe. From that early universe, until now.

In 1877 Boltzmann used statistical ideas to gain valuable insight into the meaning of entropy. He realized that entropy could be thought of as a measure of disorder, and that the second law of thermodynamics expressed the fact that disorder tends to increase. You have probably noticed this tendency in everyday life! However, you might also think that you have the power to step in, rearrange things a bit, and restore order. For example, you might decide to tidy up your wardrobe. Would this lead to a decrease in disorder, and hence a decrease in entropy? Actually, it would not. This is because there are inevitable side-effects: whilst sorting out your clothes, you will be breathing, metabolizing and warming your surroundings. When everything has been taken into account, the total disorder (as measured by the entropy) will have increased, in spite of the admirable state of order in your wardrobe. The second law of thermodynamics is relentless. The total entropy and the total disorder are overwhelmingly unlikely to decrease

Now the apparent contradiction is to understand that when the views are taken to those small spaces, reductionistic features of a discrete nature have forced us to consider the building blocks of matter, but at the same time, something else makes it's way into our views that would have been missed had you not realized that the space contains a lot of energy?

To build this symmetrical and simple model of elegance, you needed some model, some framework in which to consider the distant measure here would be ultimately derived from the blackhole and it's dynamics? The simple solution would help you recognize that any massless particle emitted from this state, would automatically signal the closest source of consideration that any of us could have imagined.

Even Smolin, recognized the Glast determinations. Why I have said, that Smolin could not have gotten any closer then what is surmised from the origination of emission from the blackhole consideration?

Quantum Microstates: Gas Molecules in the Presence of a Gravitational Field

Andy Strominger:

This was a field theory that lived on a circle, which means it has one spatial dimension and one time dimension. We derived the fact that the quantum states of the black hole could be represented as the quantum states of this one-plus-one dimensional quantum field theory, and then we counted the states of this theory and found they exactly agreed with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

I do not know of many who could not have concluded that microstates would have been something of an issue, as one recognizes this focus towards cosmological considerations. One aspect of Einstein’s general relativity, helped us recognize the value of gravitation that is extremely strong in situations where energy values are climbing. We had to look for these conditions and work them out?



Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

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.

If we did not have some way in which to move our considerations to the energy states that existed in the beginning of this universe what other measures would you use? How would you explain a cyclical model that Neil Turok and Steinhardt talked about and created for us?

Is this a predictive feature of our universe that had to have some probablity of expression and mathematically, if one wanted some framework, why not throw all things to the wind and say, Pascal's triangle will do?:)

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.

One had to have some beginning with which to understand what could have emerged from such energy configurations. If such energies are concentrated and found to bring us to the supersymmetrical values assigned on that brane, then how would cooling functions of the CMB have figured a direct result would be expressive of those same events? Was there no way to measure chaoticness. Maybe it was all Fool’s Gold?:)

Fool's Gold

Ludwig Boltzmann
(1844-1906)

In 1877 Boltzmann used statistical ideas to gain valuable insight into the meaning of entropy. He realized that entropy could be thought of as a measure of disorder, and that the second law of thermodynamics expressed the fact that disorder tends to increase. You have probably noticed this tendency in everyday life! However, you might also think that you have the power to step in, rearrange things a bit, and restore order. For example, you might decide to tidy up your wardrobe. Would this lead to a decrease in disorder, and hence a decrease in entropy? Actually, it would not. This is because there are inevitable side-effects: whilst sorting out your clothes, you will be breathing, metabolizing and warming your surroundings. When everything has been taken into account, the total disorder (as measured by the entropy) will have increased, in spite of the admirable state of order in your wardrobe. The second law of thermodynamics is relentless. The total entropy and the total disorder are overwhelmingly unlikely to decrease



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.

How much wiser are we with the understanding that Curlies Gold told us much about what to look for in that One Thing?



The result is that the pinball follows a random path, deflecting off one pin in each of the four rows of pins, and ending up in one of the cups at the bottom. The various possible paths are shown by the gray lines and one particular path is shown by the red line. We will describe this path using the notation "LRLL" meaning "deflection to the left around the first pin, then deflection right around the pin in the second row, then deflection left around the third and fourth pins".


So, what is the value of PI, if a "point" on the brane holds previous information about the solid things we see in our universe now? Have we recognized the momentum states, represented by the KK Tower and the value of 1R as it arises from the planck epoch?

The statistical sense of Maxwell distribution can be demonstrated with the aid of Galton board which consists of the wood board with many nails as shown in animation. Above the board the funnel is situated in which the particles of the sand or corns can be poured. If we drop one particle into this funnel, then it will fall colliding many nails and will deviate from the center of the board by chaotic way. If we pour the particles continuously, then the most of them will agglomerate in the center of the board and some amount will appear apart the center. After some period of time the certain statistical distribution of the number of particles on the width of the board will appear. This distribution is called normal Gauss distribution (1777-1855) and described by the following expression: