The Lowest Octave State

Sometimes simple concepts, like something representing the lowest vibration mode of the string, the lowest octave helps in a sense helps to orientate what the particles mean, such as protons,neutrons and electrons. Where they exist now as they cosmic collsions meet and dissapte it's influence in our atmospheres, our planet.

Yet Moshe speaking about sparticles has interesting relations in context of symmetry breaking, yet, without thinking about what experiments are now being listed, what value this lowest vibration mode? What value that leads us to think about this lower scale as evidence now held within our views.

Clifford:

We’ve got to remember what we assumed in order to get to the cirtical dimensions, and then revisit those assumptions every time we learn something new about the whole story

Would be a consistent pattern, when new options and experimental consideration are introduced. In the case I listed above in ICECUBE.

The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

I think this would be consistent on the level of what you are saying Clifford? Lay people like myself would understand this I think. While very aware of the higher energy considerations in context of reductionism, had taken us too dual blackhole considerations within the collisions taking place not just in the colliders.

It presented opportunites in how we see what strings might have emplied in Cerenkov radiation? What is it that we should see in this relation, that strings would have said here is another opportunity?

Cerenkov Radiation and the Blue Glow

At full power (200 kilowatts), the UMR Reactor core produces approximately 6.4 trillion fissions per second. Each fission event liberates a tremendous amount of energy, a portion of which is carried away by fission products which then decay and produce high-energy beta particles. Often, these beta particles are emitted with such high kinetic energies that their velocities exceed the speed of light (3.0x108 meters per second) in water. When this occurs, photons, seen to the eye as blue light, are emitted and the reactor core "glows" blue.

While no particle can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, it is possible for particles to travel faster than light in certain mediums, such as water. The speed of light in a particular medium, v, is related to the speed of light in a vacuum, c, by the index of refraction, n, by v = c/n. Water has an index of refraction of 1.3, thus the speed of light in water is 2.3x108 meters per second. Therefore, beta particles with kinetic energies of 0.26 MeV travel at speeds in excess of 230 million m/s!

It is important to remember somethings here. I am trying to hone in on the exact reasons for this idealization, to see in the ways that we do. Why the sky is blue in relation to the sun that shines and the Earth as it is ?:) How often has the child asked, while we had been witness to the very thing in our everyday waking lives.

Thus we are quickly transported into the strange world of refractve indexes and such, as examples of what angle and departures these particle might take in their collisions courses. Yet we know as we look up that beyond the blue, it gets dark again Redshifting on the horizons as our sun sets.

Cosmological particles exsit that are free of our atmosphere. What say these things in that environ, while it is dark? What shall we say of these things when the sun influences dances on our outer atmosphere?

Wikipedia and the Uses of Cerenkov Radiation(8 Feb 2006)

When a high-energy cosmic ray interacts with the Earth's atmosphere, it may produce an electron-positron pair with enormous velocities. The Cherenkov radiation from these charged particles is used to determine the source and intensity of the cosmic ray, which is used for example in the Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Technique (IACT), by experiments such as H.E.S.S. and MAGIC. Similar methods are used in very large neutrino detectors, such as the Super-Kamiokande.

So I am again drawn back to the state of the earth's gravitational field, with which this planet being weak, lets us see particle states that it does? How shall I keep in mind, that such circumstance free of refractive indexes( a vacuum)speed of light wil mett the chance to have faster then light capabilties, in a blue glow? Have I then nailed the reasons why such concepetualization take to the two extrmes of what vison had garnered for us, and the circles meaningwhile it signfied this interchangeability?

Ah, my more layman head. :)Like a Koan supplied to tax the mind, a simple statement is drawn out, over and over again, while in time, the mind becomes flooded with so many possibilities with a flash of light. What is this Koan, that I speak of?

Brian Greene:

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

Don't worry Clifford, while Brian Greene might have been the spokesperson for all scientist actors, it is still with some benefit that we undertand how the abstract mind releases itself, but for a short time. While the influence of nature has its way with us. Whilst we had been so intensely looking, the break from the work, allowed the culmination to seep through in a simple jesture of understanding. That seems to be the way of it.

My Attempt at Playwriting?

It's nice we have somebody to keep a tight reign on the transmissions of science in the media? :) I was thinking of those who collaborations are used when developing movie scenarios. "Brian Greene" playing himself on Frequency.

You played yourself--twice--in the movie, "Frequency". The movie is about a father communicating from 1969 with his son in the present on a ham radio, due to an unusual atmospheric aurora that bounces radio signals across time, not just space. You played Brian Greene being interviewed by Dick Cavett as both a younger and older man. Any reflections on either the interesting premise of the movie, or the adventures of being on the big screen?

I couldn't help think of

as an example of Humble Boy by Charlottle Jones?

In regards to "bumblebee wing rotations." This is my italicized bumbling attempt :( How a waiter with a tray could make a complete loop(bumblebees finding the quickest route while hovering or travelling), so how was it employed in this play(something about bee keeping, but not my version)?

Here's my attempt.

I'm Dressed up in a bumblebee suit waiting tables. While working I change my striped waiter vest completely inside out without it leaving my body? Qui Non!

As the science meme continues, the story unfolds:

Confused and lost in the abstract world, the waiter mistakenly puts on the suit not realizing he was not to take it so literal. The differentiation between the waking reality, and the one in which he was transported, was a psychological cover to mask the real events going on in his dream life.

Letting loose the masking and not retaining funtionability with his reality sense based recognitions, he slipped easily over the edge?

Alien transportation had occurred, and induced psychological dramas did not sway the determination of a mind that had venture into unfamiliar territory. The edge, was what was the limit of the people in the resturaunt, while the waiter, thought his actions normal. :)

In another scene Alien abductors, are left scratching their heads as to how model implants had been been foiled and taken so literal, when it was realized the waiter had already be abducted once before, and meme introduction had been superimposed over a previous attempt to included natural symbolic functions.

White Owl and the Bee clashed leaving the poor waiter in a state of actions less then correct while dawning hs suit.

On Humble Boy

I have not seen the play of Humble Boy, but the thought about plays was held in my thinking yesterday as Clifford talked about Nature.

So maybe that's the trick then? Read out loud/sound what you've written, brings dimensionality to the written word?:)

Humble Boy "Links" Borrowed:

National Theatre production

Manhattan Theatre Club production

Interview at Floreat Domus

Article in the Daily Telegraph

Article in Playbill

Article in Physics Today

Reviews:

The British Theatre Guide

CurtainUp

Daily Telegraph

Financial Times

The Guardian (1)

The Guardian (2)

Amanda Hodges

Humbug's Guide to London Theatre

The Independent (scroll down for review)

Tom Keatinge

New York

The Observer (1)

The Observer (2)

Online Review London

Talkin' Broadway

Vengatoro

The Village Voice

Charlotte Jones:

Profile at The Guardian

Charlotte Jones

Time

You need a "Axion point" to derive symmetry breaking from equilibrium? Hmmmmm..... I'm thinking here.

The idea is taking the first three minutes and moving it to the first three seconds and that's where strings come in...

I must warn you though, that the model of superstrngs is facing strong opposition today because is does not have the scienctific proof and validation that any model should have. On this basis alone ,it is being challenged.

One must remember though, that it has a strong theoretcial structure that will remain incomprehensible to most, to me, that I have only the faintest ideas as to the complexity of the math structures.

Part of this insight is to take macroscopic views and have them reduced to microperspective views while looking about the every structure of this universe. So they use the LHC/RhIC reference for analogies as to what happens in those very beginnings.

The overcoming incompatibility relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity has been the goal, and in this theoretcial structure, this has been accomplished.

Brian Greene

Time is far more subtle than our everyday experience would lead us to believe. In many ways, time may simply be a psychological construct for organizing the world. It is a device we scientists have found useful, but it may in fact be a dim approximation of something far more complex."

Einstein in his bold statements about a pretty girl helped to direct our attention to the fleeting moments. It was last years tribute to Einstein and Beyond that helped many in dfferent perspectves and of time bring us back to what this man did for us.

Kaluza and Klein helped to push this perspective further. Some debate this model as well, yet I do not know many who have advnaced our thinking from the geometrical inclinations as Einstein did for us when he attributed time to the spacetime realization of what Gravity does for us.

The spacetime fabric became something more then the very impression that mass would reveal of itself. Energy, had a relationship in this, and yet, we are drawn to the very implication of where two diffwerent points could have ever told us that spacetime is flat. Where is this? I have given three cases where this is possible, and I have given theoretical valuation to what strings have done for us, in our microscopic view of this universe.

You had to follow strings through the theoretcical developement assigned, in or colliders. What was the result of microstate blackhole production? HE⁴ or lagrange points between the earth, moon and sun?



You had to know what theoretical associations had been marrried to scientific progress. If you have somebody who denounces and rejects the model how would you have ever thought to unite flat space, with reality models?

This is the interesting thing about choosing models, is that experimental processes are not as devoid as those whose main goal was to affront string theory, was to announce this renunciation without ever understanding it's implications.



Setting up such a wall(Peter Woit) was a disservice to those who wanted to explore this theoretical structure. It's implications, as to the first three seconds of our universe. Steven Weinberg laid it out for us in the first three minutes, why not a more introspective view in the consequences of this universe borne to what it is?

Spacetime 101

Here's some basic background covering how mathematical models of space and time have evolved since ancient times, from the Pythagorean Rule to Newtonian mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity.

For the roads leading to one's view of the strange world of non-euclidean views had to offer, I of course needed some model from which to work. As I looked at the model above and the transfer of higher dimensional thinking, the very idea and contrast to the lower image represented, how would you associate gravity in the diagram but watch the circle valution along side of gravity that emegres from the 2d discription as a energy valution, and relationship to gravity, evolving from mass, energy interconnectivity. I have to apologize as I was developing and am developing.



I do not know if this is right to assign my view above, while one did not know the evaluation of 1R as I watch DRL assessment of what can no longer be considered as valid, I have to wonder why such observations are not thought about more intricately as the valuation of that circle is considered. The comparison was drawn between the two pictures of the spacetime fabric above here, and below.

Let's now start analysing a 2D case, that of the classic Flatland example, in which a person lives in a 2D universe and is only aware of two dimensions (shown as the blue grid), or plane, say in the x and y direction. Such a person can never conceive the meaning of height in the z direction, he cannot look up or down, and can see other 2D persons as shapes on the flat surface he lives in.

So if you follow the dimensional analysis, there is a systemic procedure that one has to follow, that does not have to be held in context of KK interpretation to this point, but it does help if you think about the very basis of this graduation that certain statements make themself known.

Degrees of freedom(Wiki 24 Jan 2006)

Zero dimensions
Point
Zero-dimensional space
One dimension
Line
Two dimensions
2D geometric models
2D computer graphics
Three dimensions
3D computer graphics
3-D films and video
Stereoscopy (3-D imaging)
Four dimensions
Time (4th dimension)
Fourth spatial dimension
Tesseract (four dimensional shapes)
Five dimensions
Kaluza-Klein theory
Fifth dimension
Ten, eleven or twenty-six dimensions
String theory
M-theory
Why 10 dimensions?
Calabi-Yau spaces
Infinitely many dimensions
Banach space (only some have infinitely many dimensions)
Special relativity
General relativity

Would you dimiss a comment by Greene because of the speculation you have felt about him that you might not recognize, what is being said as you watch that circle develope alongside of the sphere, as it moves through the 2d discription? Here's what mean, as I had focused on Brian Greene's words.

Angular momentum can twist light cones and even make time travel possible in theory if not in practice.

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?

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

Fifth dimension(wiki 24 Jan 2006)

Abstract, five dimensional space occurs frequently in mathematics, and is a perfectly legitimate construct. Whether or not the real universe in which we live is somehow five-dimensional is a topic that is debated and explored in several branches of physics, including astrophysics and particle physics.

Five dimensions in physics(Wiki 24 Jan 2006)

In physics, the fifth dimension is a hypothetical dimension which would exist at a right angle to the fourth dimension

Hyperspace

Science is that human activity in which we aim to show towards nature that respect that in a democracy we endeavor to show towards each other."

There is no doubt my views are biased. For all the wrong reasons I have cited the questions about how I see, has been strongly encouraged. There is no leader for me in this question( driven in my own research), with something that lead me through the mathematics and divergences from Euclidean perspectve.

It was joined on a level with the geometrical implications of GR conclusions and assignments to Rienmann's positive views. Held in context of his teacher, I have given respect to the Gausssian approach of thinking, and definitions, assigned Hyperspace. If I see Gaussian coordinates as viable, then how shall I refrain myself from seeing in such spaces?

So of course this is troubling to me, that if I was to proclaim my true belief in the religiousity of stringevangelism, then how could I ever give someone the clear and concise picture of this graduation?

So shall I put aside my views of the translation given to hyperspatial views, in context of all the "colorings" I have given the "dynamical relation" of what is not seen, and is hidden, I want to understand this better, from the layman point of view.

So a strong debate needs to be fuelled in regards to the validation process of what hyperspace actually means. Has it been a means to an effort to geoemtrically assign right thinking through the stages of what we have been given to perspective. That the beginning of this universe, had circumstances given to micro perspective views, had lost touch with the validation process, that this geometry, could have ever given credence in mathematical basis. There are no physics at that level, yet my view had been reduced to the superfluid.

While "the debate" is not mine, by layman status, I do follow the logic.

Deflating Hyperspace" by: David Pacchioli (Research/Penn State, Vol. 16, no. 4 (December, 1995))

For Chernosky, a Ph.D. candidate in English literature, this isn't exactly the same thing as asking what hyperspace means. Hyperspace seems to mean a lot of things, and then again not to mean much at all; its meaning shifts with the user, if not with the wind. It is, Charnesky writes, "an almost empty signifier capable of almost limitless application."

"This fuzziness," he adds in person, "is its power." It is also a quality that puts hyperspace in rather crowded company. Our language is loaded with terms appropriated from science for use in popular discourse. Along the way, the borrowed word's highly technical, narrowly precise -- not to say arcane -- meaning is typically transformed. What emerges is a fluttering, eye-catching, all-purpose concept that can be used interchangeably for explaining the weather or selling toothpaste.

So conduct becoming, and of what I asked of others I am working to see this transition through. How I still believe in "my God, my religiousneess, and faith in humanities struggle for perfection" and still offer, perspective here, while biased?

No one speaks here so I have to lead myself through intuitive journies, if there is not the willingness at other points in the blogopshere for this debate to take place. Of course, in my silent way I will try and be fair. I like to thank Peter for the toning down that has taken place.

What views have been put out there then that we could answer and put aside comparative functions to "alien cultures" and all the sort, to speak a truth that would move perception accordingly.

Are mathematcians divided in this case?

Hyperspace(23 Jan 2006)

Hyperspace theories are concerned with theoretical systems that have more than the familiar three spatial dimensions. Hyperspace theories are largely a mathematical theory but their developers often attempt to make them of use to physicists. Hyperspace theorists generally believe that the laws of nature are simpler in higher dimensions

What are Degrees of Freedom


If we travel to Peter Woit's site, can we point to the article introduced and go from there? If I quote the next source above, then this would have given reason to wonder if the trailing thoughts of those who wished to deal with this(above Wiki article and references), might create recognition of some of the things Peter Woit is describing.

So lets open it here then.

Einstein Has Left the Building
By JOHN HORGAN
Published: January 1, 2006 NYTimes

Today, government spending on physics research has stagnated, and the number of Americans pursuing doctorates has plunged to its lowest level since the early 1960's. Especially as represented by best sellers like "A Brief History of Time," by Stephen Hawking, and "The Elegant Universe," by Brian Greene, physics has also become increasingly esoteric, if not downright escapist. Many of physics' best and brightest are obsessed with fulfilling a task that occupied Einstein's latter years: finding a "unified theory" that fuses quantum physics and general relativity, which are as incompatible, conceptually and mathematically, as plaid and polka dots. But pursuers of this "theory of everything" have wandered into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality. In his new book "Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond," the physicist Lawrence Krauss frets that his colleagues' belief in hyperspace theories in spite of the lack of evidence will encourage the insidious notion that science "is merely another kind of religion."

Krauss and Susskind versus Horgan

Peter Woit:

I don’t see Horgan here criticizing the attempt to quantize gravity as “frivolous”. His criticism of physicists as having “wandered into fantasy realms of higher dimensions with little or no empirical connection to our reality”, is a justifiable one that deserves to be seriously addressed. Krauss and Susskind’s comment that Horgan would be surprised that both of them think that new degrees of freedom will be needed to characterize elementary particle physics doesn’t seem to have any basis in fact. Horgan isn’t making broad claims that physicists shouldn’t look for new degrees of freedom, he is very specifically referring to the use of extra space-time dimensions.

Earth Bound Solutions to All Possible Pathways

Will I might have been guilty of taking Physics down a road so similar in conceptualization bastardizing, that I would have driven a nail in the very deaths of what could have emerged from the outcome of all possibilties? That we were indeed attached to the consequences of our ever actional decisive forays into human contact. Decision making, action orientated, outcomes, of the original simplectic intiated ideas?

It had to arise from something?

Would it be so easy to lay out the pathway required, that each of us woud have recognized our time in existance, would have indeed been the measure of all things that we choose to endorse in our ever perfecting evolution as cyclcical choices of perfecting our thinking.

This is a interesting thought held in my mind when you think of about what is held in context thinking, if we hold the photons in context of earthbound recognitions of those time orientated distances.

Many will know instantly what this means while others, scoff at the notion that we could have seen such influences telling us anything useful about the space of these interactions.

All the while the initial plectic recognition of Gellman's arose to complexities. We lost sight of the simple ideas about what might happen to the spin rotations over those vast distances? That the connectiveness, would have ever acknowledged equative relations that these two photons under the squared earthbound views, would include all probabilites being still held to view. While we still look at all possible actions? So what about time indeed.

Einstein's prettty girl scenario and hot stove, served to help me see conceptual framesworks about speed attributions of the nature of fast and slow moving world in terms of our earthbound considerations. This action was decisive, and held in context of that experience. He helped me to see that experience is indeed fleeting, depending on our circumstances, where such nature would have embedded the very nature of the spacetime fabric itself to include, how we will measure that distance of mind.

Is there another story here that we might be convinced of a rational behind?

Here is something that Brian Greene mentions to reinforce where I had come to in looking at the completion of that chapter.

the quantum entanglement would become so spread out through these interactions with the environment that it would become virutually impossible to detect. For all intents and purposes, the original entanglement between photons would have been erased.

Never the less it is truly amazing that these connections do exist, and that craefully arranged labratory conditions they can be observed over significant distances. They show us, fundamantally, that space is not what we once thought it was. What about time?

Page 123, The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene

Does gravity vary over time?

If you did not have this in mind, what value would you attribute gravity in any scenario, as you mull over all the geometrical implications if a positive geometric solutions to Riemann's spherical solutions. The persective that GR holds for us, in our considerations?

Theory, experiment and fine structure

Were it not for relativity, the three states with different J would all have the same energy, and the light emitted in the transition would have a single frequency of about 277 000 GHz. However, relativistic effects mean that the states have slightly different energies, and when this light is analysed carefully, splittings of the order of 10 GHz are seen.

If ever driven to micro-perspectives how would time been of value if held to the quantum perspective as a strong enviriomental influence. One which spreads out all interactive phases that we could no longer discern, a viable solution to what is presented to us, unless in "symmetry breaking" realizations. So what was that beginning. Again Kravstov computer simulations help to drive that concept home.

Another laser beam is used to make the atoms fluoresce, and the amount of fluorescence is measured as a function of the microwave frequency to plot a "resonance curve". An ultra-precise measurement of time can be made by measuring the frequency of the peak in this resonance curve (see "Atomic clocks" by Pierre Lemonde in Physics World January 2001 pp39-44).

So simplicity for me asks what image in mind would hep one to discern entropic valuation to what this universe had become from temperature orientated view of that early universe, to have said, "that the probabilites that are evident now, have become like this?"

Two things formed in my mind as to the consequence of numbered systems, and pascal triangle, as to the source of all probabilitistic valuations and the marble drop held in context of BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION.

So having defined the early universe and quantum valution arising from temerature, it helps to think about the outcome emerging from what had never been understood or have in "measured stick," to what would become our universe today? It still is the earthboud experience that we have, has emerge from astate that was equal in it's determinations. Ideas are like that.

So you had to see simplicity settling into our minds in such a way that If Plato indeed points up, then you would understand immediately, what he is pointing too. If you hold that image in mind of the triangle, then how would you ever assess Riemann's hyptohesis, as to the spirlaic outcome of Ulam's spiral indications? While the spiral opens up to the vast potential of outcome originating from ideas, it still settles into minds in it's concrete form.

So you have to define this relationship very carefully, and if I had said Liminocentrically topologically organized, what the heck would I have been saying?


Heaven's ephemeral Qualities?

It seems it would have far reaching enlightening features of what the buddhist mind might have to offer? What subtle arrangement the conceptual framework might have said about our everyday interactions with each other? Then you might have said what color indeed are the emphemeral qualities to our [mathematical]decisive minds that we would choose such abstract colors as yellow in our mental appreciations of what nature hides in the color of flowers around us? :)

Grue and Bleen

Brian Greene:

In the late 1960s a young Italian physicist, named Gabriele Veneziano, was searching for a set of equations that would explain the strong nuclear force, the extremely powerful glue that holds the nucleus of every atom together binding protons to neutrons. As the story goes, he happened on a dusty book on the history of mathematics, and in it he found a 200-year old equation, first written down by a Swiss mathematician, Leonhard Euler. Veneziano was amazed to discover that Euler's equations, long thought to be nothing more than a mathematical curiosity, seemed to describe the strong force.

He quickly published a paper and was famous ever after for this "accidental" discovery.

If one did not seek to find a "harmonial balance" where is this, then what potential could have ever been derived from such situations about the possibilties of a negative expression geometriclaly enhanced?

Because the negative attributes have not added up to much in production of anti matter, have we assigned a conclusion to the world of geometerical propensities to not encourge such things a topological maps?

The puzzle to the right(above) was invented by Sam Loyd. The object of the puzzle is to re-arrange the tiles so that they are in numerical order.

The puzzle forms a model of how the positron moves in Dirac's theory. The numbered tiles represent the negative-energy electrons. The hole is the positron. When a negative-energy electron falls into the hole, the hole appears to have moved to another position.

While it would not have seemed likely, such redrawings of the pictures of Albrecht Dürer, this individual might not have caught my attention. I seen the revision of the painting redone, and what was caught in it. You had to really look, to get this sense.

Gott Time?

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

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

Brian Greene:

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

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

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

(does this sound familiar Steven?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inverse Square Law, Sound

Acoustic Physics

Of course you must remember, that I was influence by the Triangle man, and the idea of sound valuation in the determinatins of how we see differently. While complex math is the desired result of all the efforts of physics explanatory developement, there are ways in analogistc senses, that we may compare the values of the auditorium and how sound is reproduced for us visionaries of a slightly more complex reality we all like to further develope beyond that standard model.

In more technical language, sound "is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material" (Olson 1957) or series of mechanical compressions and rarefactions or longitudinal waves that successively propagate through media that are at least a little compressible (solid, liquid or gas but not vacuum). In sound waves parts of matter (molecules or groups of molecules) move in a direction of the spreading of the disturbance (as opposite to transversal waves). The cause of sound waves is called the source of waves, e.g. a violin string vibrating upon being bowed or plucked.

So while indeed I am sort of in dismay as to what the reality is in presenting Quantum geometry to the realms of quantum gravity, the mathematical valuation is very real and sealed for those math types, that the issue of "points" become blurred as in any quantum mechanical position of uncertainty, that when we see sound valution take on different energy determinations radiate outward from sources un impeded how smooth does it actually look?


The sound intensity from a point source of sound will obey the inverse square law if there are no reflections or reverberation. A plot of this intensity drop shows that it drops off rapidly.

Amazing Sounds

There are rules we follow and some rules that are defined just as they might be in terms of the inverse square law, we see comparative views must hold, to well defined equations. So can we play the game now.

Examples of Reverberation Times

One way to respond to the question "What is a good range of reverberation times for concert halls?" is to give examples of some of the most famous halls in the world. For the overall average reverberation times:

Vienna, Musikvereinsaal : 2.05 seconds

Boston, Symphony Hall: 1.8 seconds

New York, Carnegie Hall: 1.7 seconds

But the overall average reverberation time does not tell the whole story. The variation of reverberation time with frequency is also important

What is a Phonon/Photon?

Phonon: A particle of sound. The energy E of a phonon is given by the Einstein relation, E = hf. Here f is the frequency of the sound and h is Planck's constant. The momentum p of a photon is given by the de Broglie relation, p = h/λ. Here λ is the wavelength of the sound.

Photon: A particle of light. The energy E of a photon is given by the Einstein relation, E = hf. Here f is the frequency of the light and h is Planck's constant. The momentum p of a photon is given by the de Broglie relation, p = h/λ. Here λ is the wavelength of the light.

But with some help here lmitation have been drawn to compaative valuations where such background non background detrminations have foundthemselves combing in views that sucha raod to a quantum grviaty ppursuate in string has less then what is desirable to what most see as necessary.

Planck Length



John Baez:

The most conservative approach to quantum gravity is to seek a theory that combines the best features of general relativity and quantum field theory. To do this, we must try to find a background-free quantum theory with local degrees of freedom propagating causally. While this approach may not succeed, it is definitely worth pursuing. Given the lack of experimental evidence that would point us towards fundamentally new principles, we should do our best to understand the full implications of the principles we already have!

This has a quick and sobering effect when our views are drawn to such theoretical formats. We have to seen how "discrete points" and "wave functions in smooth topological valuations could have embolden the view of the dynamics in the concert hall, as effects beyond the normal scope of vision. Lives held, and cherished sounds around the feasibility that our choices had effective circumstances in the envirmoment of time valuation.

While some would set the order of books derived from synoptic events as illusions, more then journalistic festitudes that we all like to engage in, then why can we not a Michio Kaku, or Brian Greene in words become?

Shall we not assign such views to the roads travelled, in the words supported by "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity?" A Lee Smolin song about the story and views of the three approaches?

Let's say you are a Peter Woit and success finds you in your new book. Shall we assign you to a separation of groups. To which lives held in distinct sufferings and restrictions to a "alloted time" with which you may have become part fo the "fabric of the populace?" Your duration or shortness of breath?

It has no end that some will make their empression, and some will become a deeper marker of the wonders about what has traversed through our our reasoning that the desired results by consensus are recognzied even in this division.

Objective Truth?

Mark:

you can tell has a real thirst to get her mind around the issues, and who isn’t looking for a sound bite to take the place of a complicated story

There is no doubt in my mind that KC Coles will play a significant role and is playing a significant role, in helping us to put our heads around things that are extremely interesting.

Award-winning science journalist and author K.C. Cole will join the USC Annenberg faculty as a visiting professor of journalism in January 2006, the School announced Friday, October 28, 2005.

Will she follow what a Lee Smolin does, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity," or what a Brian Greene does in terms of, "the Fabric of the Cosmos," or what anyone for that matter who is engaging the quantum gravity issue. Who gets as close as, Michio Kaku does, in helping people to view hyperdimensional realities, from roads that had been travelled from historical perspectives? Get's as close as possible to what Atlas is doing in terms of Calorimetric perspectives?

This would mean the doors are open wide and that her work, will be guided, by those who are at the front, right?

Doesn't a clear "objective truth" not only increase our awareness, but also lays at the door sill, an invitation to engage the questions of what roads leave off where, and what roads are being left with guiding signs, as a door open to the future?

So I know with the creative impute Clifford seems to have, this could be a interesting proposition, and for Mark, such curators know well to ask what would help the public understand these issues better?


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

Ideas, they already exist, we just have to recognize them?:)

Objective truth, should be as discernable, as the roads that lead to future thoughts and ideas. This is really a tuff question to me, and having math and physics holding two features of inductive and deductive processes within our capable minds, would have some oscillatory response to a place, where that plateau is most desirable and can lead to future ideas. It's a place where injection of all that already exists comes to awareness. We just had to get there by standing back and accessing what the picture is in relationto the room. In relation to the what draws the eye, and what peole use of it to further elucidate our understanding of.

Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

Heraclitus - melancholy and alone, shown with the face of Michelangelo

This is a human situation, that would seek to find all in accord with, and raises question towards, that validity and extension of inductive and deductive modes. Can we excell the physics and math approaches with this interconnectivity forward to that open invitation?



Whether physicists and Mathematicians "believe" they belong to a secular view of reality, does not diminish the humanness with which responsiblity can transverse the scope of our thinking. To further invitations of psychological valuations into the meanings of the "hot stove and a pretty girl," as an culmination of good understanding about durations of time. In happiness and sadness, while this is philosophical bent, there is reason to believe that "time" can hold these valuations. That time, can be a measure in our ascertions of human conduct?



So we want this "objectve truth" so clear and concise, that it could permeate all the way down to the generalization of good physicist and mathematicains minds, to help ordinary citizens realize that the basis of objective truth lies at the heart of these words of wisdom shed amongst the populace?

So understanding where this oscillatory feature of inductive and deductive features would serve us all well I think, helps orientate what the picture of Raphael's reality includes. Not just to be taken on the surface, for what we see?

If from a "langangrian perspective" we understood where this resonantial feature could invite human awareness of this deeper hidden valution of the unseen, then the point on the chaldni plate makes it readily discernable, where injection and place one could invite these ideas into?

Our perspective and views, can go much deeper then what we had first realized, now that we know that this "arche" oversees all roads leading to the investigations of the maths and physics simultaneously. Opens such a doorway to objectivity, and extensions of human thought about what should extend into the realms of the bulk perspective. It all arose from soem consistent geometrical modelling that none were the wiser takes place, until you look at what Einstein had to incorporate. To bring such a conclusion to the idea of seeing this world from a greater perspective then the one we are held to following lines on a sphere.

"Sailing ships" now become men(?)photons who see for the first time, a view of a globe, that we had been so long held too, that we understand a greater relationship now between clocks, and it's influence on that same photon. Influence of time?

So now for the conclusion of where this picture sits here. That one indeed might wonder about the Room of the Signatore, and the place of power it holds in the Religion of the Roman Catholic. Does it bolster religious dogma, that this article in question would point to ID and it's classification, assigned to religious held views of what science should mean?

Sure, Raphael could have been a very religious man, but artistically, what could all of this science include then? Do we denouce this part of our heritage from a historical sense, or have we progressed? Throw out dogmatic rules, that do not adhere to our scientific understanding then?

Now I think it is a better understanding and clarity of these situations that we recognize each will hold to their "religion" regardless. That if some see what we are doing by let's say holding "string theory" to such high esteem, then it is the insult of "truth," as to what we hold in our investigations?

A relation to particle reductionisms and the deeper reality taken to view the origins of our universe? It would be very insulting would it not seem, had we all agreed on historical perspective, made way for scientific enlightenment?

Strings: The First Three Seconds

I didn't want to invoke God here, but in any "flash" is there not some pattern that mathematically needed to describe the way everything began? A word, or sound?

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

Before the Beginning
Interview with Sir Martin Rees, Part 2

Helen Matsos (HM):

Last year the big "science event" was measuring the cosmic microwave background and dating the big bang to 13.8 billion years ago, within an 8 to 10 percent margin of error. Can you give us some idea of the boundaries of the big bang -- what was it like in the first seconds, and how far will the universe expand in the future?

So indeed the universe become entrophically considered, as the evidence starts to make itself known in all it's forms, yet there is a space. Now by itself, such expression of the universe would have one event, but imagine down on earth our moments, can cause such repercussions ahead in time?

AM:

You played yourself--twice--in the movie, "Frequency". The movie is about a father communicating from 1969 with his son in the present on a ham radio, due to an unusual atmospheric aurora that bounces radio signals across time, not just space. You played Brian Greene being interviewed by Dick Cavett as both a younger and older man. Any reflections on either the interesting premise of the movie, or the adventures of being on the big screen?

So how we categorize such encounters with the child in our hopes of encouraging it's future, or our very presence and example lead. As a sign post, of what any society could become in the eye of good moral men and women? So one can move quietly no doubt and remain unseen, while the work can be a gentle reminder, of how we can affect "each" in time. Words like "etc" that could take on greater meaning, to have the hand slight a deletion. Remember how sensitive we can be to music? In Plato's academy I had made this point clear. I make clear what dissonance can do:)It can definitiely ruffle the field. Straight up and straight forward, a comment should do for those that would like to learn.

Brian Greene

Time is far more subtle than our everyday experience would lead us to believe. In many ways, time may simply be a psychological construct for organizing the world. It is a device we scientists have found useful, but it may in fact be a dim approximation of something far more complex."

WEll here is a better view on the relation to the The Powers of Ten

I talked briefly on the "chance encounter" of a child with a scientist, and the alluring role of powers of ten takes on. As if, it can "reverberate" in the probabilities of a future time.

Who is responsible for this creative surge?:)Creative endeavors, are always fueled by another?

IN such a cultural context, how is it that we could not see underlying reality is a musical inclination taken form in what any future could become. So, by the very value of the resonance contained, a feature of any moment?

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:)

The Succession of thinking

How far indeed the the imagination can be taken to see such processes enveloped in how we percieve these changes all around us. Why is gravity so weak, here and now. I have jumped ahead but will lead into it from the other end of this article.

Never before had I encountered the reasoning of imaging behind the work of "conceptual frameworks" now in evidence. In how a mathmatician, or a scientist, like Einstein or Dirac, had some basis at which the design, of all that we endure, would have its's counterpart in this reality as substantial recognition of what must be done.

I don't think anyone now in the scientific arena needs to be reminded about what it takes to bring theory into the framework of cultural and societal developement, to see how it all actually is working. On and on now, I see this reverberating from Lisa Randall to all scientists that we encounter from one blog to the next, a recognition and developement of this visualization ability.

That Famous Equation and You , By BRIAN GREENE Op-Ed Contributor in New York Times, Published: September 30, 2005


Brian Greene:

After E = mc², scientists realized that this reasoning, however sensible it once seemed, was deeply flawed. Mass and energy are not distinct. They are the same basic stuff packaged in forms that make them appear different. Just as solid ice can melt into liquid water, Einstein showed, mass is a frozen form of energy that can be converted into the more familiar energy of motion. The amount of energy (E) produced by the conversion is given by his formula: multiply the amount of mass converted (m) by the speed of light squared (c²). Since the speed of light is a few hundred million meters per second (fast enough to travel around the earth seven times in a single second), c² , in these familiar units, is a huge number, about 100,000,000,000,000,000.

There are two links here.One by Peter Woit with reference to article and one toSean Carroll who further illucidates the article by Brian Greene.

So here I am at the other end of this referenced article, that other thoughts make their way into my mind. Previous discussison ongoing and halted. To todays references continued from all that we had encountered in what General Relativity surmizes.

That this issue about gravity is very real. So that's our journey then, is to understand how we would percieve the strength and weakness through out the spacetime and unification of a 3 dimension space and one of time, to some tangible reality within this coordinated frame Euclidean defined.

The Succession of Thinking

Mark helps us see in a way we might not of considered before.

Dark Matter and Extra-dimensional Modifications of Gravity

But the issue is much more complicated then first realized if we take this succension of thinking beyond the carefuly plotted course Einstein gave us all to consider.

Plato on Sep 27th, 2005 at 10:23 pm We were given some indications on this site about the state of affairs with Adelberger. Do you think this time span of proposed validation processes, were constructively and experimentally handled appropriately through it’s inception? As scientists would like to have seen all such processes handled in this respect?

So indeed I began to see this space as very much alive with energy that had be extended from it's original design to events that pass through all of creation, then how indeed could two views be established in our thiniking, to have Greene explain to us, that the world holds a much more percpetable view about what is not so understood in reality.

An Energy of Empty Space?

Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothingness. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property of space that Einstein discovered is that more space can actually come into existence. Einstein's gravity theory makes a second prediction: "empty space" can have its own energy. This energy would not be diluted as space expands, because it is a property of space itself; as more space came into existence, more of this energy-of-space would come into existence as well. As a result, this form of energy would cause the universe to expand faster and faster as time passes. Unfortunately, no one understands why space should contain the observed amount of energy and not, say, much more or much less.

All the while the ideas that would leave gravity without explanation in a flat euclidean space, gravity would have been left to that solid response without further expalnatin in a weak field manifestation. But it was always much more then this I think.

While being caution once on what the quantum harmonic oscillator is not, Smolin did not remove my thinking of what was all pervasive from what this "empty space" might have implied, that heretofor "it's strength" was a measure then of a bulk, and what better way in which to see this measure?

Taken in context of this succession, this place where such conceptual framework had been taken too, it was very difficult not to encounter new ways in which to understand how gravity could changed our perceptions.

Thalean views were much more then just issues about water and all her dynamical explanations. It presented a new world in which to percieve dynamical issues about which, straight line thinking could no longer endure. A new image of earth in all it's wander, no less then Greene's analysis to how this famous equation becomes evident in our everyday world. It presented a case for new geometries to emerge. Viable and strengthened resolve to work in abstract spaces that before were never the vsion of men and women who left earth. Yet it all had it's place to endure in this succession that we now have adbvanced our culture in ways that one would not have thought possible from just scientific leanings.

So now I return myself to Einstein's allegorical talk on what concept had taken, when a scientist had wondered on the valuation of time.

Quantum Gravity: The Blackhole

Drawing Plane and Coordinate Systems More information is given here in Wiki.

There is no "distance" separating cosmological events, from the cubic centimeter in the corner of the room? I have to tell you why I see this, and what lead me to conclude such a thing. As I relay at bottom of page, this will be the subject of the next posted thread.

Imagine spreading such malicious comments as those in bold below?:)

Brian Greene

Sure. One of the strangest features of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we see directly in the world around us. That sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory. So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they're all around us, but they're small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and therefore are more difficult to detect.

I guess the link to source is good enough sometimes but not the page with which the url exists?:)

Sometimes all it takes is a concept to fuel the direction with which we might presume to deal with this world of the spacetime fabric. Brian Greene surmizes, and in a synoptic mode aligns our view for consideration, or a Lee Smolin, in developing Three roads, previews quantum gravity approaches for consideration. This "lineage", is developed in this sense.

The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene, is a good source for inspiration, on my "The Fifth Dimension, is the Spacetime Fabric." I am gone in a whisper, and advancement is placed for those who will exceed our limitation in how we percieve the world. This is the way it has always been. On and upward.:)

Good people like Gerard t'Hooft help direct our attention in a most appropriate way, even amidst the ramble of rejection of any theoretical position. Once the comment is established, then indeed we move ahead to wonder and draw the conclusions we do, with a whole page of such reasoning. This whole blog is filled with this central idea.

Imagine molecules in the corner cubic centimeter of the room( nice visulaization for a strting point), and all that exists in this space is contained, all, the information of the universe at large? Would I have triggered ideas in the notion that Pierre Auger seen something unusual in cosmic interactive features of our current earth, as a playing field for particle reductionism? In face of LHC and all the wonderful toys that have been produced to extend vision in a reductionistic world? You have to remember John Ellis here, is how I ascent to views in these two different ways.

Gerard t' Hooft:

The predominant force controlling large scale events in the Universe is the gravitational one. The physical and the mathematical nature of this force were put in an entirely new perspective by Albert Einstein. He noted that gravitation is rooted in geometric properties of space and time themselves. The equations he wrote down for this force show a remarkable resemblance with the gauge forces that control the sub-nuclear world as described in the previous paragraph, but there is one essential difference: if we investigate how individual sub-atomic particles would affect one another gravitationally, we find that the infinities are much worse, and renormalization fails here. Under normal circumstances, the gravitational force between sub-atomic particles is so weak that these difficulties are insignificant, but at extremely tiny distance scales, of the order of 10-33 cm, this force will become strong. We are tempted to believe that, at these tiny distance scales, the fabric of space and time is affected by quantum mechanical phenomena, but exactly how this happens is still very mysterious. One approach to this problem is to ask: under which circumstance is the gravitational force as strong as it ever can be? The answer to this is clear: at the horizon of a black hole. If we could understand the peculiar physical phenomena that one expects at the horizon of a black hole, and if we could find a meaningful description of its quantum mechanical laws, then perhaps this would open up new perspectives.

Smolins interpretive stance of the blackhole horizon( glast determnations fuel this venture into recognition of a discrete approach to measure,) in what is emitted on a cosmological scale. Others who paved the way for this horizon problem, take us back, Hawking, to the pre-established roads to wonder, where today does subject sit? How well in minds has this conclusion played out, that we have ventured forth in a wonderful way to approach this in such a theoretical fashion. That only "pure thought", mathematics, could have paved the way of where physics will continued on in physical interpretation.

I will introduce the idea of this "membrane analogy in the cubic centimentor:)" for further consideration, shortly after I attend to getting wood fuel for the winter months today.

Trembling, in the Unshakeable?

There is a story on this page that unfolds the more you enter the depth of perception that is offered. If you click on the picture supplied below it takes you into a deeper "cavern of thinking", that relates the depth of ideas that Lubos talks about, with ways in which the standard model might have been used.

I don't say this is the way, but just that in observation, I delved deeper into the meaning of what is not apparent on first look, had me realize that the way history can be rewritten, with a artistic inclination could hold a scientific mind to valuation of what others who demand of this reasoning to be sound.

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of general relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

On observation alone, who might judge what might issue responsibility, and we have one man's take here. I thought, why waste having hard work deleted, when I can explain myself here:)It always amazes me that such theories were allowed expression and crackpotential meter status recognition, were allowed to live well on, "Not Even Wrong."

New York Times on Toronto Panel Discussion

In Comment Section:

Peter Woit:I’ve always personally felt that the real question is not how to quantize gravity, but how to quantize gravity in some way that tells us how the geometry of space-time is related to the geometry of the standard model.

So Tony Smith opens the door to crackpot alley, and the chances of who might issue forward with possible scenarios, can include, not just the sane in respect of one man's view, but others to comment regardless of the stature with which he might impose a strict recogniton of what is required.

Do they all follow this regiment?

So while this topic was going on I thought about something, or rather someone, who might fit the requirement of Peters statement. Why not my words, and the perspective of another, who saw historically one way, had revisionistic insight, to redraw the picture in a way, that such a view could be extolled in Peter's Comment?

While the Standard Model has been very successful in describing most of the phenomemon that we can experimentally investigate with the current generation of particle acceleraters, it leaves many unanswered questions about the fundamental nature of the universe. The goal of modern theoretical physics has been to find a "unified" description of the universe.

This indeed leaves a "pretty big question mark", but Prof.dr R.H. Dijkgraaf might he learnt to hide this question mark in a place where few with good observational skills might find it? So how lovely indeed, that such a veiw that Peter Woit asks for, might have been embued in artistically thesis of the good professor?

See if this "picture" rings a bell?:)



The dynamical nature of this movement, is the status of what quantum gravity might have brought forward in unseen lines and such, that Prof.dr R.H. Dijkgraaf maybe, just maybe, the answer lies here? What do you think Peter Woit?

Lee Smolin's Case for Background Independence

While we were privy to the debate between Susskind and Smolin in a previous post, the origins and definitions have been drawn from the deeper requirements of an ideology.

Where do these begin, and we find the inner compulsion of a scientist to find the means and defintions to extend the basis of our perceptions on a basis that both agree.

Lubos reaffirms this many times, and is in concert, as many in string theory continue to hold to what this desire should be.

Lubos saids:

Some of Lee's points can be agreed with, for example:

It is desirable to find a background independent formulation of string/M-theory

Such a formulation would likely to answer the questions whether the landscape approach to string/M-theory is correct; why it's not; what it should be replaced with.

This post represents a becoming. From those deeper levels, such a stage must be set?

Good for Lee Smolin, and the work he has been doing for laying a foundation, that all see, must reside to an synoptic closure, before such progressions become. If it got Lee smolin and others thinking, then, it served it's purpose, and those who say, a waste of time, would have undertsood then, Lee Smolin would not be where he is today on the pdf file here written.

So has Lubos has then directed our perspective in relation to how Lee Smolin sees the issues, and we have found the direct relationship and difference between how M Theory apporaches and How LQG does.

Lubos Motl saids:

An attempt to revive Mach's principle means to argue that the gravitational waves do not exist. It is a struggle to return us not only before General Relativity; it is a program to return the humankind to the pre-Newtonian era and the dark Middle Ages. Some people may be permanently impressed by Mach's principle and some people may find it shallow after a closer scrutiny. These two groups may be composed of equally nice people. But the difference is that the critics of Mach's principle have a good physical intuition; its advocates are philosophers who are unable to think analytically and quantitatively and they prefer to insist on prejudices that can be shown flawed by a five-minute-long quantitative argument.

There are catelysts all around, that ask for this deeper resolve to come forth. Asking for greater potentials in our visionistic qualities, to understand, that we can see this world very much differently? What pathway had been established then that Lee Smoln would attack this from another perspective held within the ideas of Special Relativity, that holds the idealization before the roads to gravitational understanding had been theoretically proven by Einstein.

Lubos Said:>

OK, let me start with the questions about relationism and Mach's principle. I highly recommend you the second popular book by Brian Greene, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", where the relative vs. absolute debate is covered in the first chapters. And the presentation is very nice.

How often the debate on such levels of what seems has been lacking in string/M theory that such voices extolled would relinquish it to paths unexperimentally challenged? They would have missed the opportunity ofsuch a debate brought forth from the Dialogos of Eide.

It is a strong statement which arises from the Platonic school, that such a discussion would reveal, that what is in the Heaven of ideas, could descend to minds and those who ask, those who embroil themselves, to questions of what it is, that makes the ideas of reality, a part of the natural world.

Lee Smolin:

The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

Liminocentric Structures: Which Circle do you Belong Too?

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'.

As most know "Liminocentric structure" will have been defined here then? I like to think this goes back much further in our natures, and to recognize this pattern, much as Brian Greene might have spoken too, in article above one would have ot venture into it to understand.



Then why would I inject past historical views here to current research? It is a issue of wholeness and bringing resolution to the camps of LQG and Strings. If you look at the circle here in an expansitory view. The circle as a point, deals with particle reductionistic principals as well as dealing with General Relativity on a cosmological scale. They both deal with gravity from their respective positions. What are their strengths and weaknesses?

I will be away for about two weeks and a much needed break, so I hope people will explore this avenue, for it is the basis of my research in understanding this interchange between, depending on which circle you belong, two ends that need to come together and in this regard, LQG and String theory might have found this unification, but from which different ends?



There is no end, and it is continous by nature?

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points. That each theory involves loops-in string theory, these are string loops; in loop quantum grvaity, they're harder to describe nonmathmatically, but. roughly speaking, they'r elementray loops of space-suggests there might be a connection. This possibility is further supported by the fact that on a few problems accessible to both, sucha s blackhole entrophy, the two theroies agree fully. And on the question of spacetime's constittuents, both theories suggest that there is some kind of atomized structure. Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

To me this connection lies in how we interpret the circle and this variation in between them, is a powerful topological structure form that is understood as we see the question of which circle is which? From which space quantum mechanically to cosmologicazlly. In terms of that atomized look, to the nature of relativity through that cosmo.

The last departing statement in Brian Greene's book sets the stage for how the string community has to orientate its view from one perspective, while LQG needs to orientate theirs. This is used, to point to ISCAP and the introduction Brian Green gives us.

Look at Page 493 of his book, and then look here.

The goal of ISCAP is to bring together theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, and observational astronomers to address key problems in particle physics and cosmology that require a broad confluence of expertise and perspective.

Even the good intention would have failed to see this connection between both camps, but I see that having it explained as such here, I hope to point to something much deeper in our psyche that warrents the orientation to mathematcial structures that underlies our consciousness. As subjective a view as it might seem to some, there are reasons that I support such views, and without hurting the purity of the direct mathematical relations, I needed to bring the article and title of this entry forward for consideration. It is a necessary part of wholeness that the dicrete natures and the wonderful views of continuity would share some relationship even in the bulk of our considerations?

Which Circle do you belong too? You are one, and the same are you not?:)



"Nothing to me would be more poetic; no outcome would be more graceful ... than for us to confirm our theories of the ultramicroscopic makeup of spacetime and matter by turning our giant telescopes skyward and gazing at the stars," Greene said.


The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."