All Particles of the Standard Model and Beyond

Polchinski Elected Member Of National Academy of Sciences

Polchinski's discovery of D-branes and their properties is, according to the Academy citation, "one of the most important insights in 30 years of work on string theory."

Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

From one mechanic to another

I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

So what things did I learn?

That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.



These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

As a layman, this was proving itself, as I looked at the diversity of the geometrical models choosen to represent that abstract world. See B Field and Hitchins. Genus Figures, and topology, on this site.

More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

IMpressional Minds
If as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

The Reductionistic Process
Is it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?



So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.



So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

So both events involved, "microstate blackhole" recognitions.

Post removed from Peter Woits comment section

In regards to facing nightmares

In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced."

The link was added here now.

If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

Jack has some explaining to do?

Update

(To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)

Anyway. As I was saying.

This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

See:

History of the Universe and the Standard model

Intersection of D Branes

I'm not going to try and kid you with "this stuff," as it is extremely beyond anything that any of us mere mortal can understand. So, if such a thought would be to simplify, then how would such thinking be attributed to such model building and make it easier for us lay people to comprehend where these people are working in terms of the way they do things.

What is important is that we can derive some method to this madness:) okay! rather this abstract thinking, to show some kind of similarity in lay people's current thought patterns for easy recognition.

I'll burn in hell, if I get this wrong, but surely from my "faulty trails (not Tower)" I can be forgiven, until a clearer picture is given to us, that I could revamp all that I said, and leave for you now, the trials and tibulation of a rogue what?:)

Now you have to think about what I am saying, if you understand indeed, that such a place exists in the picture below, which for us mortals to consider. Think for a minute about the blackhole and where I had been talking in relation to the collider, as well as, the cosmic collisions taking place, with higher energy particles in our own atmosphere.

Weak field manifestation has particle consideration evident, and we find these here on earth, as neutrinos. Do You see now?

Physicists Andrew Strominger and Cumrin Vafa, showed that this exact entropy formula can be derived microscopically (including the factor of 1/4) by counting the degeneracy of quantum states of configurations of strings and D-branes which correspond to black holes in string theory. This is compelling evidence that D-branes can provide a short distance weak coupling description of certain black holes! For example, the class of black holes studied by Strominger and Vafa are described by 5-branes, 1-branes and open strings traveling down the 1-brane all wrapped on a 5-dimensional torus, which gives an effective one dimensional object -- a black hole.

I thought this to be part of the trivial effort with which I had departed to the bulk perspective, without really undertanding how I had got there. Yet I do see in these ways and many things are encompassed within it(gravitonic concentration). I would say, like Clifford telling us about the proper way in which we should move within these mathematical environs, then I would say what a rogue scholar I make, becuase this seems be the bastard child I am whose school is by insight developement, and some of it, wrong of course. But I try.

Superstrings, black holes and gauge theories

D-branes are non-perturbative excitations of string theory on which open strings can end. Open strings have gauge fields, so the D-branes define a gauge theory. There is a class of black hole made of D-branes, and these have a quantum gauge theory description. The closed strings define a field theory of gravity.

PROSPECTS FROM STRINGS AND BRANESA.SEVRIN

Strings occur in two versions: closed and open strings. Roughly speaking, one has that closed strings carry the gravitational interaction and the open strings carry the gauge interactions. While closed strings can freely propagate in space, the modern point of view is that the end points of open strings are “stuck” on p-dimensional hypersurfaces, where p ∈ {1, 2, · · · , 9}. These hypersurfaces are known as Dp-branes. They are dynamical but they are extremely heavy in the perturbative regime of string theory (their tension or energy per unit of volume is inversely proportional to the string coupling constant): they are solitons. A D0-brane is a point-like object, a D1-brane a string-like object, a D2-brane a membrane, ... Just as a propagating point particle sweeps out a curve – the world-line – in space-time, a Dp-brane sweeps out a p + 1-dimensional volume – the world-volume – in the 10-dimensional space-time. The effective dynamics on the world-volume is then described by a p + 1-dimensional field theory.

D-branes represent a key theoretical tool in the understanding of strongly coupled superstring theory and M-theory. They have led to many striking discoveries, including the precise microphysics underlying the thermodynamic behaviour of certain black holes, and remarkable holographic dualities between large-N gauge theories and gravity. This book provides a self-contained introduction to the technology of D-branes, presenting the recent developments and ideas in a pedagogical manner. It is suitable for use as a textbook in graduate courses on modern string theory and theoretical particle physics, and will also be an indispensable reference for seasoned practitioners. The introductory material is developed by first starting with the main features of string theory needed to get rapidly to grips with D-branes, uncovering further aspects while actually working with D-branes. Many advanced applications are covered, with discussions of open problems which could form the basis for new avenues of research

The link below contains over 222 pages, so if you are on Dial-up, you have to think twice about clicking on it. Another of Cosmic Variance's very own.


D-Brane PrimerClifford V. Johnson

Following is a collection of lecture notes on D-branes, which may be used by the reader as preparation for applications to modern research applications such as: the AdS/CFT and other gauge theory/geometry correspondences, Matrix Theory and stringy non-commutative geometry, etc. In attempting to be reasonably self-contained, the notes start from classical point-particles and develop the subject logically (but selectively) through classical strings, quantisation, D-branes, supergravity, superstrings, string duality, including many detailed applications. Selected focus topics feature D-branes as probes of both spacetime and gauge geometry, highlighting the role of world-volume curvature and gauge couplings, with some non-Abelian cases. Other advanced topics which are discussed are the (presently) novel tools of research such as fractional branes, the enhancon mechanism, D(ielectric)-branes and the emergence of the fuzzy/non-commutative sphere.

Second of Five Lagrangian Equilibrium Points

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense that one image we're getting, is quite different(lensing) from the image that is behind the brane? The idea of brane collision from steinhardt and turok perspective, created this space bewteen the branes, while the image behind this(the other image) is receding?

I am not sure exactly.

Dark matter in the high-redshift cluster CL 0152-1357. Gravitational lensing analysis with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) reveals the complicated dark matter distribution (purple) in unprecedented detail when the Universe was at half its present age. The yellowish galaxies are the visible cluster member galaxies forming a filamentary structure, possibly in the process of merging.
(Jee et al. 2005, Astrophysical Journal)

Not many can see in this abstract way, or have considered how a photon might have travelled? Sure they have understood satellites and the travel through space, but have they consider this in context of CSL lensing? Sean put up a link yesterday that had me seeing how such a travel over distance might have had some photonic strange journies in context of such lensings.



The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.

This picture below really set the final stage for me. Thus simplification has been mounted in how we see such tubes formed within the greater context of the universe and here we have a way of seeing that is new? It helps one to view universe travel and paves the way for roads through such space?

Is it so hard to visualize? Is it so hard not to consider how one should make there way through such space?


Weak Lensing Distorts Universe?

IN order to extend the link to the information supplied in previous article presented by Sean Carroll, Fraser Cain here links us to the following conversation.

Feynman's Path Integrals

While this following comment might seem inappropriate to the content of this post, I place it because of what I see in determination of the langangian methods used to help us see how gravitatonal equilibrium points, speak to how such travels would have been initiated in sum over paths used as Feynman's distributes the actions according to set model held i a cosmological sense I am looking at the the picture above here and the path ways shown.

December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Tony Smith:


As to the time of Feynman soving the QED problem, in 1941 (according to Mehra’s Feynman biography The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford 1994)) Feynman had the inspiration from Dirac’s paper of using the Lagrangian method, which led to Feynman’s 1942 Ph.D. thesis. As to that thesis, Mehra says “… Feynman mentioned that “the problem of the form that relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, take from this point of view, remains unsolved. …”. So, Feynman’s Shelter Island relativistic QED solution was developed after his 1942 Ph.D. thesis.

I had been looking for this relationship and how Feynman’s toys models came into being? Can this be the beginning as you relate?

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? :)

Plato:

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.

Main Stream Breakthrough on Cosmic Variance

linked in title of article of same name, by Sean Carroll

A Randall/Sundrum view of the cosmos

The trick in this picture supplied by Sean is to look at the ideas of gravitonic concentrations, as these would be leading to the range from weak field manifestation to high energy strong concentrations. Such a variance is the over riding validation to me of how all this comes together.

From a historical perspective wasn't Steinhart and Turok already dealing with this perspective in his demonstration of colliding branes?

There are certain assumptions made here as well, and this is the question that probably haunts me most, that if the universe was cyclical in it's nature(so it doesn't need to be explained in M theory?), then there had to be "something always existing" from which to have this enduring cycle of birth and death ever connected? Where did your brane come from? Where did your bulk come from?

Now Steinhardt and Turok say that - according to 'M-theory' - the universe need not pass through a singularity between a big crunch and a big bang. Supported by most cosmologists, M-theory says that space-time has eleven dimensions, of which we perceive four: three in space and one in time. Our four-dimensional 'brane' - short for membrane - is moving among the remaining dimensions or branes, which are hidden at very small or very large length scales.

This might contradict the idea of "microstate blackholes" as ever being useful in our determinations of the source of expression, from the "idea" of brane theory collisions?

If one was to think outside the box, the outside of the box would have to be included in the inside? :) Greene gives a fitting statement for this although he does not do it in relation to the box, but in direct relation to "the circle".

I give this a philosophical term in relation, as a "Liminocentric structure", yet it seems fitting to have a inductive/deductive features in this "toposense" as relevant. You know, the universe in the "mind of human kind and human kind in the universe."

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.

Art and Science

This is going to be quite the blog entry because as little a response might have been from Clifford's links to artistic imagery and it's relation to science. I definitely have more to say.

So being short of time, the entries within this blog posting will seem disjointed, but believe me it will show a historical significance that one would not have considered had one not seen the relevance of art and it's implications along side of science.

Did Picasso Know About Einstein

Arthur Miller

Miller has since moved away from conventional history of science, having become interested in visual imagery through reading the German-language papers of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger - "people who were concerned with visualization and visualizability". Philosophy was an integral part of the German school system in the early 1900s, Miller explains, and German school pupils were thoroughly trained in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

Piece Depicts the Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Identity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano
The Myth of the Beginning of Time

The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the big bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millenia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined witha grand set of concerns, one famosly encapsulated in a 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?

Scientific America, The Time before Time, May 2004.



Sister Wendy's American Masterpieces":

"This is Gauguin's ultimate masterpiece - if all the Gauguins in the world, except one, were to be evaporated (perish the thought!), this would be the one to preserve. He claimed that he did not think of the long title until the work was finished, but he is known to have been creative with the truth. The picture is so superbly organized into three "scoops" - a circle to right and to left, and a great oval in the center - that I cannot but believe he had his questions in mind from the start. I am often tempted to forget that these are questions, and to think that he is suggesting answers, but there are no answers here; there are three fundamental questions, posed visually.

"On the right (Where do we come from?), we see the baby, and three young women - those who are closest to that eternal mystery. In the center, Gauguin meditates on what we are. Here are two women, talking about destiny (or so he described them), a man looking puzzled and half-aggressive, and in the middle, a youth plucking the fruit of experience. This has nothing to do, I feel sure, with the Garden of Eden; it is humanity's innocent and natural desire to live and to search for more life. A child eats the fruit, overlooked by the remote presence of an idol - emblem of our need for the spiritual. There are women (one mysteriously curled up into a shell), and there are animals with whom we share the world: a goat, a cat, and kittens. In the final section (Where are we going?), a beautiful young woman broods, and an old woman prepares to die. Her pallor and gray hair tell us so, but the message is underscored by the presence of a strange white bird. I once described it as "a mutated puffin," and I do not think I can do better. It is Gauguin's symbol of the afterlife, of the unknown (just as the dog, on the far right, is his symbol of himself).

"All this is set in a paradise of tropical beauty: the Tahiti of sunlight, freedom, and color that Gauguin left everything to find. A little river runs through the woods, and behind it is a great slash of brilliant blue sea, with the misty mountains of another island rising beyond Gauguin wanted to make it absolutely clear that this picture was his testament. He seems to have concocted a story that, being ill and unappreciated (that part was true enough), he determined on suicide - the great refusal. He wrote to a friend, describing his journey into the mountains with arsenic. Then he found himself still alive, and returned to paint more masterworks. It is sad that so great an artist felt he needed to manufacture a ploy to get people to appreciate his work. I wish he could see us now, looking with awe at this supreme painting."

Art Mirrors Physics Mirrors Art, by Stephen G. Brush

Arthur Miller addresses an important question: What was the connection, if any, between the simultaneous appearance of modern physics and modern art at the beginning of the 20th century? He has chosen to answer it by investigating in parallel biographies the pioneering works of the leaders of the two fields, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso. His brilliant book, Einstein, Picasso, offers the best explanation I have seen for the apparently independent discoveries of cubism and relativity as parts of a larger cultural transformation. He sees both as being focused on the nature of space and on the relation between perception and reality.

The suggestion that some connection exists between cubism and relativity, both of which appeared around 1905, is not new. But it has been made mostly by art critics who saw it as a simple causal connection: Einstein's theory influenced Picasso's painting. This idea failed for lack of plausible evidence. Miller sees the connection as being less direct: both Einstein and Picasso were influenced by the same European culture, in which speculations about four-dimensional geometry and practical problems of synchronizing clocks were widely discussed.

The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis (French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent examiner. Picasso learned about Science and Hypothesis indirectly through Maurice Princet, an insurance actuary who explained the new geometry to Picasso and his friends in Paris. At that time there was considerable popular fascination with the idea of a fourth spatial dimension, thought by some to be the home of spirits, conceived by others as an "astral plane" where one can see all sides of an object at once. The British novelist H. G. Wells caused a sensation with his book The Time Machine (1895, French translation in a popular magazine 1898-99), where the fourth dimension was time, not space.

The Search for Extra Dimensions
OR Does Dzero Have Branes?

by Greg Landsberg

Theorists tell us that these extra spatial dimensions, if they exist, are curled up, or "compactified."In the example with the ant, we could imagine rolling the sheet of paper to form a cylinder. If the ant crawled in the direction of curvature, it would eventually come back to the point where it started--an example of a compactified dimension. If the ant crawled in a direction parallel to the length of the cylinder, it would never come back to the same point (assuming a cylinder so long so that the ant never reaches the edge)--an example of a "flat"dimension. According to superstring theory, we live in a universe where our three familiar dimensions of space are "flat,"but there are additional dimensions, curled up so tightly so they have an extremely small radius

Issues with Dimensionality

"Why must art be clinically “realistic?” This Cubist “revolt against perspective” seized the fourth dimension because it touched the third dimension from all possible perspectives. Simply put, Cubist art embraced the fourth dimension. Picasso's paintings are a splendid example, showing a clear rejection of three dimensional perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Instead of a single point-of-view, Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as if they were painted by a being from the fourth dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously. As art historian Linda Henderson has written, “the fourth dimension and non-Euclidean geometry emerge as among the most important themes unifying much of modern art and theory."

And who could not forget Salvador Dali?

In geometry, the tesseract, or hypercube, is a regular convex polychoron with eight cubical cells. It can be thought of as a 4-dimensional analogue of the cube. Roughly speaking, the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square.

Generalizations of the cube to dimensions greater than three are called hypercubes or measure polytopes. This article focuses on the 4D hypercube, the tesseract.

So it is interesting nonetheless isn't it that we would find pictures and artists who engaged themselves with seeing in ways that the art seems capable of, while less inclinations on the minds to grasp other opportunities had they had this vision of the artist? They of course, added their flavor as Salvador Dali did in the painting below this paragraph. It recognize the greater value of assigning dimensionality to thinking that leads us even further had we not gone through a revision of a kind to understand the graviton bulk perspective could have so much to do with the figures and realization of what dimensionality means.



So while such lengths had been lead to in what curvature parameters might do to our views of the cosmos, it wasn't to hard to envision the realistic valuation of graviton as group gatherings whose curvature indications change greatly on what we saw of the energy determinations.

Beyond forms
Probability of all events(fifth dimension)
vvvvvvvvvvvvv           Future-Time
vvvvvvvvvvv                  |
vvvvvvvvv                   |
vvvvvvv                    |
vvvvv                     |
vvv                      |
v                       |
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>now -------|
flash fourth dimension with time     |        
A                       |
AAA                      |
AAAAA                     |
AAAAAAA                    |
AAAAAAAAA                   |
AAAAAAAAAAA                  |
AAAA ___AAAAA                 |
AAAAA/__/|AAAAA____Three dimension          
AAAAAA|__|/AAAAAA               |
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA              |
|
___                      |
/__/ brane--------two dimension
\ /              
.(U)1=5th dimension

I hope this helps explain. It certainly got me thinking, drawing it:)

Similarly a hypercube’s shadow cast in the third dimension becomes a cube within a cube and, if rotated in four dimensions, executes motions that would appear impossible to our three-dimensional brains.

So hyperdimenionsal geometry must have found itself describable, having understood that Euclid's postulate leads to the understanding of the fifth. A->B and the field becomes a interesting idea, not only from a number of directions(Inverse Square Law), dimensional understanding of a string, that leads from the fifth dimensional perspective is a point, with a energy value that describes for us the nature of curvature, when extended to a string length(also becomes the point looking at the end, a sphere from a point, and at the same time a cylinder in its length).

In looking at Einsteins fourth dimension of time, the idea of gravity makes its appearance in respect of dimension.

So how is it minds like ours could perceive a fifth dimensional perspective but to have been lead to it. It is not always about points( a discrete perspective)but of the distance in between those points. We have talked about Gauss here before and Riemann.

Who in Their Right Mind?


Penrose's Influence on Escher
During the later half of the 1950’s, Maurits Cornelius Escher received a letter from Lionel and Roger Penrose. This letter consisted of a report by the father and son team that focused on impossible figures. By this time, Escher had begun exploring impossible worlds. He had recently produced the lithograph Belvedere based on the “rib-cube,” an impossible cuboid named by Escher (Teuber 161). However, the letter by the Penroses, which would later appear in the British Journal of Psychology, enlightened Escher to two new impossible objects; the Penrose triangle and the Penrose stairs. With these figures, Escher went on to create further impossible worlds that break the laws of three-dimensional space, mystify one’s mind, and give a window to the artist heart.

Penrose and Quanglement


Order and Chaos, by Escher (lithograph, 1950)

Some Distant Bounding Surface

I mean when I referred to fifth dimensional views you know that the computer screen includes not only it's functionability in relation to science, but adds that bit of extended flavour to model construction we call imaging right?

a) Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension. This is a simplification of the 5-D space­time considered by Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein. (b) The Lorentz symmetry of the large dimension is broken by the compactification and all that remains is 2-D space plus the U(1) symmetry represented by the arrow. (c) On large scales we see only a 2-D universe (one space plus one time dimension) with the "internal" U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism.

Remember Brian Greene's is from 2001. What might have change since then with Brian Greene and his views about about that distant bounding surface. Of course to many of us it is a brane world recognition.



If we did not recognize what advancements might have been accomlished with mathematics and the fifth dimensional views on our computer screens? Could we ever really talk about such idealizations, without understanding that there are ways to look at this, and reductional valuations taken from fifth dimensional views down to 2? Our computer screen. Of course Brian Greene has included the thickness of the bounded surface, so, time had to be inclusive here would it not?:)

The Edge

Physics and everything we know in the world around us may really be tied to processes whose fundamental existence is not here around us, but rather exists in some distant bounding surface like some thin hologram, which by virtue of illuminating it in the right way can reproduce what looks like a 3-dimensional world. Perhaps our three dimensional world is really just a holographic illumination of laws that exist on some thin bounding slice, like that thin little piece of plastic, that thin hologram. It's an amazing idea, and I think is likely to be where physics goes in the next few years or in the next decade, at least when one's talking about quantum gravity or quantum string theory.

So how can such a thing as Brian calls a Bounded surface and relate it's thinness to a vast capability? Also in the cosmic perspective, to have brane collisions illustrated by Steinhardt, become much more then our views held to the surface mathematically inclined. To be revealled, in stringy dynamics, at the basis of our viewing?

Such creation slotted into the time frames of this beginning, is stil questioning the valuation of what existed before stringy ideas manifest, so what pray tell, could have ever been "the sun" in behind, that illuminates "shadows" on the wall?

The Randall-Sundrum braneworld model is characterized by ordinary matter being confined to a hypersurface embedded in a higher-dimensional manifold through which gravitational signals may propagate

Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of LAtimes.com

In the latest, hottest Big Science tome — the delightfully titled "Warped Passages" — Harvard physicist Lisa Randall describes the idea that the universe we see around us is but one tiny part of a vast reality that may include an infinite number of other universes. Randall is an expert on both cosmology and that arcane branch of particle physics known as string theory. By marrying the two fields, she and her colleagues have formulated a picture in which our universe may be seen as a soap-film-like membrane (a "braneworld") sitting inside a much larger space: the bulk. According to general relativity, the universe we live in has four dimensions: three of space and one of time. Randall's work extends this framework and posits the existence of a fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is the bulk, and within its immeasurably expanded space, there is no reason to assume that ours is the only cosmos.

So there are amazing leaps here then to new world recognitions of ideologies that formed from where?

John Ma Pierre:

What is remarkable is that much of the recent progress in understanding non-perturbative aspects of string theory and supersymmetric gauge theories has been made in parallel, using each to gain knowledge and insights about the other. There are various reasons for this intimate connection between supersymmetric gauge theories and string theory. One is that supersymmetric gauge theories arise as low energy effective descriptions of compactified string theories in limits where gravity decouples. Another reason is that superstring theories can be formulated in backgrounds that contain D-branes, and supersymmetric gauge theories serve as effective world volume theories for these D-branes. In addition to these direct examples, it is sometimes the case that intuition about non-perturbative physics that is gained in one area can be directly applied to the other. An example of this is the guiding principle that singularities in the quantum moduli space of a low energy effective theory signal the appearance of new massless states. This was seen to be a generic phenomena in supersymmetric gauge theories and was subsequently applied to the resolution of conifold singularities by massless black holes in string theory.

Wow! More then five!:) Okay reference was made by Sean on a one liner about magic and his meeting in a bar. Where a sister as the science teacher explains this statement. Well it has been gathered up for consumption in other areas, so of course we have to explain this as now this conversation is leading other talks to consider more issues about what began as a mystery has no place in the developement of science.

I am a little dismayed by this, because anomlistic features without explanation would seem as such, while it is true, that it can be expalined afterwards, once we understood how something from the 21st century dropped into our laps for consideration:) We know what this means right? It had to be coisstent and logicall so repeatability can hav eother hands , for verification. How did you expalin it and lead them hwere one had not gone before?

That sounded like Startrek for a minute there:)

CFT and the Tomato Soup Can

As always, the layman trying to develope the mathematical views?:)

Greg Kuperberg on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:11 pm

Conformal maps of the Earth are a great introduction to complex analysis. If you identify the Earth with the Riemann sphere, then the Mercator map is exp(i*z), while the quincuncial projection is a Weierstrass elliptic function. Or you could view it as a 2-to-1 conformal projection from a torus to a sphere with four ramified points. I imagine that it is relevant to one-loop calculations in string theory in that guise.

At what level has this map then progressed if we held such views to the "horizon and boundary conditions." That is now replaces what we talk about of earth, and now relay the mass consideration to events in the gravitational field? Has the mathematic hypothesized now, gone through a revision, and needed support of mathematical views?


Campbell's Soup Can A. Warhol

What mathematics would move our perception to the gravitational views seen there? Gary Horowitz relays the outside label of a can of a soup as the conformal surface, while the soup, the spacetime fabric?

On planet Earth, we tend to think of the gravitational effect as being the same no matter where we are on the planet. We certainly don't see variations anywhere near as dramatic as those between the Earth and the Moon. But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

So one would look at topography as something much different then what is laid out on this globe as "hills and valleys"?

So now this map, has this extra feature to it.

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 th 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

While on this topic it behooves me to think of the "horizon" and the mathematical construct that has taken us there. While we see to explain the nature of the effect in a fifth dimensional view, it had been reduced to "temperature" as a relation of this conformal view?

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

As much as one would try and ignore this position, you cannot get away from the mathematics or the approach and what this has culminated too.

I like Peter and his no nonsense views, but he has gone to far in rejecting the basis of "mathematical dialogue" in face of what D brane issue had been taken too?

Why would he reject mathematics on the one hand demonstrative of a particular point of view to which it has developed, then, ignore what position it had taken both string theory and Lee Smolins attempts at the disciption of the blackhole dynamics, from the views of that horizon?

With regards to the conformal field theory approach. While I am in my infancy, I recognize the views of Bekenstein Bound, and the hologrpahical approach. One must first learn to crawl, then walk I know, but how indeed does one get to the vision held, when he himself(who ever you like) cannot explain how such a mathematics like string theory, arose to help with our views of reality?

In 1919, Kaluza sent Albert Einstein a preprint --- later published in 1921 --- that considered the extension of general relativity to five dimensions. He assumed that the 5-dimensional field equations were simply the higher-dimensional version of the vacuum Einstein equation, and that all the metric components were independent of the fifth coordinate. The later assumption came to be known as the cylinder condition. This resulted in something remarkable: the fifteen higher-dimension field equations naturally broke into a set of ten formulae governing a tensor field representing gravity, four describing a vector field representing electromagnetism, and one wave equation for a scalar field. Furthermore, if the scalar field was constant, the vector field equations were just Maxwell's equations in vacuo, and the tensor field equations were the 4-dimensional Einstein field equations sourced by an EM field. In one fell swoop, Kaluza had written down a single covariant field theory in five dimensions that yielded the four dimensional theories of general relativity and electromagnetism. Naturally, Einstein was very interested in this preprint .

While one may use sites to give indicative values ot the information, can we ignore these assumptions mathematically driven. It paved the way for how we view things that we did not see before. Go ahead reject it then:)

Are we not looking for the Trigger?:)

Atlas and Proton-proton Collisions

Depth of Perception

I am responding to the link here on Cosmic Variance and the related article, Cosmic Violence. I do not want to tie up their space, so my "further response" is being given here.

I speak of Glast in the context of that "Window on the Universe" view. This helps to orientate our deeping recognition of those events, but does not include the realization of where high energy considerations are taking us as well.:)

What is happening at the beginning of our Universe? High energy implications and lower energy determinations reveal prospective views about that same universe? How is it such a view created by such particle collisions could not be drawn to a certain time in our universe?

By getting to the "high energy times", we are also getting to the circle (think the planck epoch to now) valuation of that early universe? There are always results of energy dissipaton of these early cosmological events, so it needed a consistant way in which to look at this?

The machine, dubbed ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS), is one of four facilities to be located at a powerful accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), now under construction near Geneva, in Switzerland.

If we were to accept the circle and strong curvature as evident from our early universe considerations, (think of the circle and the planck epoch diagram as a blackhole?), then what happens when our views have been taken to suspersymmetrical points of view and the whole picture becomes locked within the model computation that Andrey Kravtsov does for us. The relaization is that this circle when taken down to planck has extremely strng gravitational considerations, and when and how do we reach this level of consideration on the time and birth of this universe?

IN Regards to Mathematical Constructs

Such an article presented by Peter Woit (How Much Mathematics Does A Theoretical Physicist Need To Know?), had me thinking in terms of what the quoted italicized statement below might mean in terms of the consistancy of mathematics developed?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=256#comment-4918(my comment below)Click on post and you now see the numbered posts alignment. What's the point?

Plato said:

If the Horizon exists as a mathematical construct, would we dissallow any mathematical counterpart that would lead from this, to incorporate other perspectives?

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

Developement of the mathematics would have been consistent then in how strng theory had developed?

So we know getting to the depth of perception necessary, had to include physics views here in order to develope the framework. High energy consideration could not have done it on it's own, so the topic is masked in theoretical definitions that we are not to accustomed too?:)

Yet it deals with a specific time frame in the developement of the early universe that is below Planck length. Below the "Planck epoch" (this holds a measureable time frame just after the beginning of the universe?)is the realization and "time valuation" that we assign this new perspective view, when we take physics in hand and abstract mathematics to it's fruitation?

While the link has been maintained to Peter Woits Blog, the post has not. It had been supplemented by Dickt's post.

This won't deter the documents and valuation of what string theory had to offer, and refused acknowledgement by Peter Woit to the progress, such developements might have taken string theory too?:)Tricky post like I wrote, acknowledges not only string theories position but Lee Smolins pursuate as well:)

UV Fixed Point

Clifford draws our attention to further talks here in his post and directs us to what Jacque Distler has to say.

I must say this is a refreshing look with Jacques contribution to further the layman point of view. Such links are worth while in the advancement of the "sentient being" that Clifford might have thought the computer world could have developed into once we assign our geometries to that world, as we would of numerical relativity and the designs we get from this look. Thomas Banchoff should be commended forthis contribution to fifth dimensional idealism in the computer world, with the notion of graphics design as a whole new approach to this understanding. Who said mathematics guys are a little to abstract for the laymen view?

Jacque Distler:

Yeah. I had hoped I was being clear.

I meant a nontrivial (non-Gaussian) UV fixed point. A Gaussian fixed point would be too much to hope for.

Now you must know that to see what he was saying, "Gaussian coordinates" determined below this post helped me to relate what was being said here. But more then this the statement of Jacques orientates what might be further implied and what had missed in my thinking.

So just to carry on a bit with this point "P" in gaussian coordinated of frame of UV, what realization exists that we could not find some relevance here in the geometry to have further exploited the mind's capabilties by venturing into the Wunderkammern of thinking. By association, of Nigel Hitchin's "B Field manifestations geometries" to realize that althought these might be limited to what Jacque is saying , then what value this geometry if we can not see the landscape as something real in time variable measures?

That we might attribute a globe, that while spherical in it's design, holds much more in it's determination. That while it might issue it's electronmagnetic field of lines, that it too could have found greater relevance in the issues of Quantum gravity, with those same inclinations of time variablenesss, that I allude too?



What am I missing that such events held to the brane in fermion distinction would not find boson production off the brane, as real as, the topic of time variableness that we might issue in geometrical feature of a globe. A globe, that is very bumpy indeed. Is this thinking limited in terms of landscape valuation? Not only in terms of brane and fermionic response, but of the real live correlation of the topic of branes in a more realistic sense, held to these geometries?

While indeed such B Field Manifestation becomes real in tangibles in our arguement of where our UV perspective might be held too, then "P" becomes of value in time variablemess, as a landscape ideology spread throughtout the brane world features? While it is also intriciately linked to our formation of landscape futher out in the recognition of the bumpy world?

So while we might see this landscape in terms of photon calorimetric association with Glast, what value besides gauusian coordinate might be freed, when we see dimensinal sigificance being represented with Glast as well. Is this thinking wrong?

The Cosmic Triangle

This link was added to paper by Steinhardt as ole picture was used for perspective had been updated, so I gave updated link to Steinhardt, as well as his paper.



The Cosmic Triangle and the State of the Universe

STRINGS '05 PUBLIC LECTURES

Peter Woit:

Dijkgraaf’s talk was completely standard string evangelism, and except for a couple slides mentioning D-branes and black holes, could easily have been given, completely unchanged, twenty years ago.

Sometimes if you do not do this assessment for the general public, and make correct the way in which a Peter Woit, Robbert Dijkgraaf or even a Lubos Motl might have views on things, then to introduce on religious grounds the ownership of perspective, one might move to defend themself as being free of "faith based organizations?" One would have been classically stereotyped, because of the position they hold? You'd all be backing away from each other?

But that's not the point I think. It's sort of like Lee Smolin synopsis, on the way "Three Roads," now leads to where one had moved since then. You see, one has to do this checking all the time, just so that the position held in context is necessary for further developmental strategies to future perspective. This is what Lee Smolin does that I like.

The harmony that is required might be okay to diverge into positions distinctive, but the larger populace would, and might see such dialogue as discerinig of the struggle that lays before all.

Such talks would be signatory of such synoptic ends, that to move forward, new harmonicial standards might be now further discussed, as they were in Solvay with friction?:)


Cosmic Landscape:
String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design


No wonder Susskind, moved to consider himself free of some intelligent design model that might have been imposed by the sean's carroll and others, who would seek to tie an aspect of theoretcial developement to some "faith based idealization of research" and developement. I have listen to it long and hard about the way in which there is some master plan to have some movement take over the common sense of the scientific trades?

So you decide and listen reader. For you, it may be something new. I can assure you you will not be taken over by some unseen force, where an exorcism is needed to bring you back to common sense.



Strings, Black Holes, and the End of Space and Time
Robbert Dijkgraaf (Amsterdam)
Strings05 Public Lecture

Special Lagrangian geometry

Dr. Mark Haskins

On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phemonenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

I am execising the geometrical tendencies here in how Sylvester surfaces might have revealled the interior space of a Reimann sphere( Calabi Yau rotations exemplified and complete), while these points located on the sphere's surface, brane, reveal a deeper interactive force within this sphere. Again I am learning to see here, hopefully it's right. The bloggers out there who work in this direction are most helpful, P.P Cook, Lubos Motl and others, who help point the way.

Differences in the gravitational forces speak directly to dimensional relevances In Lagrangian, by association to the energy valuations? Euclids postulate from 1-4, had to be entertained in a new way, from a non-euclidean world of higher dimensions? It was well evident that supergravity, would find solace in the four dimensional relevances of spacetime? How did Kaluza and Klein get there? Cylinders?

Yet the dynamical world of the way in which the satelitte can move through space helps one to adjust to how these dynamcial avenues can propel this satelitte through that same space. Circular orits chaotically predictable, yet quite diverse shown in the poincare model representation, shows how bizzare the ability of the Lagrangian points become. Can one see well with this new abstractual quality?

Einstein's equations connect matter and energy (the right-hand side) with the geometry of spacetime (the left-hand side). Each superscript stands for one of the 4 coordinates of spacetime; so what looks like one equation is actually 4 x 4 = 16 equations. But since some are repeated there are really 10 equations. Contrast this with the single gravitational law of Newton! That alone gives a hint of the complexity of these equations. Indeed, they are amongst the most difficult equations in science. Happily, however, some exact solutions have been found. Below we discuss one such exact solution, the first, found in 1916 by Karl Schwarzchild.

So it was important to understand how this view was developed further. The semantics of mathematical expression was a well laid out path that worked to further our views of what could have been accompished in the world of spacetime, yet well knowing, that the dynamcial revealled a even greater potential?



So now you engaged the views inside and out, about bubble natures, and from this, a idea that is driven. That while Michio Kaku sees well from perspective, the bridge stood upon, is the same greater comprehension about abstract and dynamical processes in that same geometrical world. Beyond the sphere, within the sphere, and the relationship between both worlds, upon Lagrangian perspective not limited.

Placed within the sphere, and this view from a point is a amazing unfoldment process of views that topological inferences to torus derivtives from boson expressed gravitational idealizations removed themself from the lines of circles to greater KK tower representations?

The following is a description of some of the models for the hyperbolic plane. In order to understand the descriptions, refer to the figures. They may seem a bit strange. However, a result due to Hilbert says that it is impossible to smoothly embed the hyperbolic plane in Euclidean three-space using the usual Euclidean geometry. (Technical note: In fact it is possible to have a C^1 embedding into R^3, according to a 1955 construction of Nicolaas Kuiper, but according to William Thurston, the result would be "incredibly unwieldy, and pretty much useless in the study of the surface's intrinsic geometry."[William Thurston, "Three Dimensional Geometry and Topology," Geometry Center Preprint, 1991, p.43.]) Since there is no such smooth embedding, any model of the hyperbolic plane has to use a different geometry. In other words, we must redefine words like point, line, distance, and angle in order to have a surface in which the parallel postulate fails, but which still satisfies Euclid's postulates 1-4 (stated in the previous article). Here are brief descriptions of three models:

This process had to be thought of in another way? Point, line, plane, became something else, in terms of string world? M theory had to answer to the ideas of supergravity? How so? Great Circles and such? Topological torus forms defined, inside and out? Completed, when the circle become a boson expressed? A point on a brane now becomes something larger in perspectve? Thanks Ramond.

Space-Tearing Conifold Transitions

Many years ago in my doodling, I created some comparisons to what I would have percieved in describing a point, line and plane. To me, I wanted to find a way to describe this point amidst a vast background of all points, so by constructing this diagram, and by realizing coordinates, intersection of lines and planes seemed a interesting idea to get to this point.

This brought some consideration to what was being shown by Greene below.


The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 326


Now at the time, this being far removed from the stories that are developing in string theory, learning that having moved to brane considerations we can see where three brane world wrapped around a sphere could produce wonderful things for us to further ponder. That such emissions, from the gravitatinal collapse could all of a sudden produce, massless vibrating strings. We know then that such strings can be a photon or a other massless particles?:)


The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 327

Part of the problem then for me is to figure out the stage of the developement of the cosmo what stage followed which stage, and the scheme within the cosmological display, the torus that had to become a sphere, or sphere collapsing to a torus? Concentrations of gravitonic expressions?

There were geometrical consideration here to think about.

Physicists found that a three-brane wrapped around a three-dimensional sphere will result in a gravitational field bearing the appearance of an extremal black hole, or one that has the minimum mass consistent with its force charges. Additionally, the mass of the three-brane is the mass of the black hole and is directly proportional to the volume of the sphere. Therefore, a sphere that collapses to a point as described above appears to us as a massless black hole, which will return to the discussion later.

Now as you know from my previous thread on the Flower considerations, color is a wonderful thing, but if my view was to be consistent, then how could there be any tearing in the use of a topological structure? The flower became very symbolic to me of what we see in the universe unfolding in these galaxies?

Two-dimensional strings trace out two-dimensional worldsheets. Since strings, according to Feynman's sum-over-paths formulation of quantum mechanics, simultaneously travel by all paths from one point to another, they are always passing by every point in space. According to physicist Edward Witten, this property of strings ensures that six-dimensional figures called Calabi-Yau spaces (theorized to be the shape of the other dimensions of our universe) can be transformed by certain topology-changing deformations called flop transitions without causing physical calamity. This is because strings are constantly sweeping out two-dimensional worldsheets that shield the flop transition point from the rest of the universe. A similar thought process goes toward the ability of Calabi-Yau spaces to undergo more drastic changes called space-tearing conifold transitions.

In order for me to consider the comlexity of the question certain insights about the nature of our universe has pointed out that there always had to be something existing, even in face of what any of us might thought of as a singularity in that blackhole collapse. But it is not that easy.

One had to assume that the bulk represented the continuance of some kind of flunctuating field of endeavor, that could hold our thoughts to dimensional attributes shared in the presetnation of Reimann's sphere. Gauss saw this early and gaussian coordinates also help to unite Maxwell into the glorifed picture of a dynamcial world?

The replacement of a 1-D sphere ( a circle ) with a 0-D sphere ( two points ) can create a different topological shape. A do-nut has a circle, round its lesser diameter, which is pinched to nothing. The do-nut turns into a cresent or banana-shape, with the two end-points repaired by the two points of a zero-dimensional sphere. The torus cum cresent can now transform into a ball, without further tearing.

This is as if Klein's hidden extra dimensions of space transformed from the one curled-up shape to another, comparably to the normal extended three dimensions changing the shape of the universe from a torus to a ball.
The evolution of the universe may involve such transmutations between curled-up Calabi-Yau spaces.

Equations governing the 'branes' showed that, from our limited three-dimensional view-point, the three-brane "smeared" around a three-dimensional sphere, within a ( curled-up ) Calabi-Yau space, sets up a gravitational field like a black hole.
The space tearing conifold transition from three to two dimensional sphere happens to increase the number of holes by one. These holes determine the number of low mass particles, considered as low energy string vibration patterns. The shrinking volume of the 3-D sphere goes with a proportionate mass decrease to zero: a massless black hole.

Stretching the Brain

Pettit shakes a remarkably sturdy film of water onboard the ISS. See the full-length movie: Reel 1, Reel 2.

"Observations of nature, no matter how seemingly arcane, are like peeling off one more layer from the great onion of knowledge, tickling your imagination with what you have found but always revealing yet another tantalizing layer underneath," says Pettit.

"I hope we never get to the core." See:Saturday Morning Science

What strikes me as strange is how we could have percieved the language of branes, with somekind of toy model even though we can't see them. For me as a sideliner, who views the world of these theoreticists, I had to try and make sense of this language they are talking about.

So I looked for some comparisons and geometrodynamics came into view, but I mean this couldn't have even been fathomable if we say it is hidden ,what the heck does this mean? The dimensional relevance had to be spoken and our visulizations moved beyond the euclidean points to a non euclidean world of metrics realization between these quark to quark measures.

So in the spirit of Feynmen, how about we use these new features to help us orientate the views of the world that is hidden and help many understand the world contained in the vacuum, that many could never have comprehended?

Lubos likes Moose horns as a analogy for Feynman path integrals?:)

Here I would look at Dvali's analogies to move the consideration forward place within context of this post.

It is part and parcel of the view I am developing, in relation to the geometrical/topological understanding that comes out of the view of how this universe came to be. I know this would quickly align some persepctives in that geometrical consideration. But having viewed Daniel Kabats response how would we describe non conformal geometries that arrive in the spaces Daniel speaks about?

So any way, here is the new toy model that one should work with, and correspond developing language in relation too GR's developing views along side of the small world we all are trying to capture.

LQG is successful here in the intersecting bubble technology(simpleces and monte carlo models in representing quantum gravity?), in regards to it's nodes, but how would string theory survive. You had to know that underlying this language is some kind of consistency. String theory represented in the graviton, points to the question for the quantum geometry/topology that will explain this unseen world that has been theorized.

Quivering, in quark to quark measures are a interesting way in which to see the world theory spaces and not the points. The configurations space would have to explain the geometry in a way the Gaussian coordinates would help us view a dynamical world?

Domains walls and Interconnecting Loops

It seems wellness is coming back in full force:) so I thought I would take some advice. This paragraph below italizied, and the one related to Chen for consideration, in terms of the abtract world that topological consideration, might have have found expression? If supersymmetrical realites are ever reached, looking backwards to the origins of the universe, what does it mean if you do not consider the high energy of any situation? Is there no mathematical world there?


As a result, the gluons inside one gold ion appear to the other ion as a ‘gluonic wall’ traveling near the speed of light. At very high energies, the density of the gluons in this wall is seen to increase greatly. Unlike the quark-gluon plasma produced in the collision of such walls, the color glass condensate describes the walls themselves, and is an intrinsic property of the particles that can only be observed under high-energy conditions such as those at RHIC.

A lot of times when you move to consider the higher forms of a geometry that leads to topological considerations, you wonder if there are other mechanisms availiable to help one move within these abstractions. So by looking at current experiments in the gold ions collisions something caught my attention that I wondered abou,t in current topological structure work and summing over all topologies to have found it's place of value?

The simple fact is that causal effects in the early universe can only propagate (as at any time) as the speed of light c. This means that at a time t, regions of the universe separated by more than a distance d=ct can know nothing about each other. In a symmetry breaking phase transition, different regions of the universe will choose to fall into different minima in the set of possible states (this set is known to mathematicians as the vacuum manifold). Topological defects are precisely the `boundaries' between these regions with different choices of minima, and their formation is therefore an inevitable consequence of the fact that different regions cannot agree on their choices.

So having understood the early universe as microstates, its important that if such opportunities in the physics bring forth other possibilties, then maybe predictive features are viable alternatives to what topological structures we are using?



Now as I said it is highly abstract for obvious reasons, and one cannot forget the royal road that lead to this dimensional perspective that seem to fall by the wayside(salem witch trials) when speculation is prodded in landscape issues and blaspheming of the branes theories.:)



So having understood early cosmological valuations in high energy considerations, are also cosmological questions, I wonder then how such formations could have ever multiplied into a cohesive structure, we have around us now? So the model that was most helpful for me was considered.

Modified Kaluza-Klein Theory, Quantum Hidden Variables and 3-Dimensional Time


In this paper, the basic quantum field equations of free particle with 0-spin, 1-spin (for case of massless and mass $>$ 0) and 1/2 spin are derived from Einstein equations under modified Kaluza-Klein metric, it shows that the equations of quantum fields can be interpreted as pure geometry properties of curved higher-dimensional time-space . One will find that if we interpret the 5th and 6th dimension as ``extra'' time dimension, the particle's wave-function can be naturally interpreted as a single particle moving along geodesic path in 6-dimensional modified Kaluza-Klein time-space. As the result, the fundamental physical effect of quantum theory such as double-slit interference of single particle, statistical effect of wave-function, wave-packet collapse, spin, Bose-Einstein condensation, Pauli exclusive principle can be interpreted as ``classical'' behavior in new time-space. In the last part of this paper, we will coupling field equations of 0-spin, 1-spin and 1/2-spin particles with gravity equations.



Using so much information(imagine strings as a expression of a much different world harmonically pitched) to try and piece together a picture of the universe, is not always easy. Gerard Hooft's points about using this in computer manifestations, is a resonable enough problem that is understood, that of course LIGO translation and Seti mode of operandi, helps us with all these tiny bits of information.