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

History of the Universe and the Standard Model

Who would of thought the history of the universe could have ever been contained in this one moment? While it had been translated to 13.7 billions years, what is the value of recognizing this vast history, to what is contained in that one specific moment held in context of the collisions, we have in the colliders? What takes place between high energy particles, and what this process helps us to understand, as we see neutrino effects, talked about in ICECUBE.



So while we ponder this momenet in time, some things became apparnet as one reads words retro spect, that help to clarify what had been going on in my mind, while never really undertanding that what had been transpiring in my thinking, had been more or less, described from another perspectve as well.

I talked about "correlation of cognition," becuase it is important that we understnd intuitive development. That we build confidence in ourselves, as we move through the informtaion and see that what we had been learning, had taken us to another level of comprehension, as if, having digested the model in question, whatever that may be.

Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.

The Four Fundamental Forces

Electromagnetism causes like-charged objects to repel each other and oppositely charged objects to attract each other. The electromagnetic force binds negative electrons to the positive nuclei in atoms and underlies the interactions between atoms. Its force carrier particle is a photon.

The strong force binds quarks together. While the electromagnetic force works to repel the positively charged protons in the nucleus of an atom, the strong force is stronger and overrides these effects. The particle that carries the strong force is called a gluon, so-named because it so tightly "glues" quarks together into larger particles like protons and neutrons. The strong force is also responsible for binding protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.

Gravity is the phenomenon by which massive bodies, such as planets and stars, are attracted to one another. The warps and curves in the fabric of space and time are a result of how these massive objects influence one another through gravity. Any object with mass exerts a gravitational pull on any other object with mass. You don't fly off Earth's surface because Earth has a gravitational pull on you. Gravity is thought to be carried by the graviton, though so far no one has found evidence for its existence.

The weak force is responsible for different types of particle decays, including a process called beta decay. This can occur when an atom's nucleus contains too many protons or too many neutrons -- a neutron that turns into a proton undergoes beta minus decay; a proton that changes into a neutron experiences beta plus decay. This weak force is mediated by the electri- cally charged W- and W+ force carrier particles and the neutral Z0 force carrier particle.

Reductionistic Views

Part of this discription is important from the understanding, that how we see, and talk about things that we do in let's say Q<-->Q measure and distance, have some relation to what we are talking about and discribing in collision states. So this entry here helps to this degree, to maintain some cohesion and understanding, while differences in model and experimental conceptions are explored.


Cosmic Rays

Conservatively the idealization, is the progression from the understanding of Unifying forces, and progression to conceptual understanding found and revealled in the world of natural processes. Who would have ever thought that platonic forms could have been capture in the mind of a Gellman, while a Feynman help to introduce us to the interactions?

Fig. 1. The four forces (or interactions) of Nature, their force carrying particles and the phenomena or particles affected by them. The three interactions that govern the microcosmos are all much stronger than gravity and have been unified through the Standard Model

.

This is what I like to do. Summations while they be ill time to a better comprehension demanded, I found this a wonderfiul idealization in moving intuitively perception to a clearer understanding, as I looked at ICECUBE. All that I am encountering through exploration of principles embued in experimental observations, according to what "new" physics might be revealled.

While the experimental situation has been set up( who determine what experiments would be challenged?) All the worker bees ready to do their parts. How well had they understood this process, to potentially reveal a better insight into what will come next?

There had to be evidence of your theoretical positions in nature.

Would you be so hesitant to just sit and wait, while the opportunity exists for you to unite these experimental procedures? Into a pciture of a complete scenario, as you understood it in nature. How energy of the particle collisons within our environ and the resulting particle dissipation, revealled as the neutrino base experiment given to signs as what?

So what is this unifying concept, that we could see the strong force, to the weak being explained, while we had paid attention and witness to many things going on with earth, as an observatory, in it's completeness?

At this moment then the division and valuation of experimental cross sectioning of fundamental forces( experiments respectively), would have been placement of "all aspects of the unifying forces" as it's measure. That we could have correlated across the map, all aspects united in some unique translation, as LIGO, or Pierre Auger, or Collider experiments, along with Ice CUbe, paints a extremely interesting picture for us.

What "new math" will be borne in the minds with "new concepts and models" to bring analogy into context as natures way?

See:

Mathematical Enlightenment

More on Dual Nature of Blackhole

In some theories, microscopic black holes may be produced in particle collisions that occur when very-high-energy cosmic rays hit particles in our atmosphere. These mini-black-holes would decay into ordinary particles in a tiny fraction of a second and would be very difficult to observe in our atmosphere.

The ATLAS Experiment offers the exciting possibility to study them in the lab (if they exist). The simulated collision event shown is viewed along the beampipe. The event is one in which a mini-black-hole was produced in the collision of two protons (not shown). The mini-black-hole decayed immediately into many particles. The colors of the tracks show different types of particles emerging from the collision (at the center).

The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole

We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole. In previous works, we have argued that the large $s$ behaviour of the total QCD cross section is due to production of dual black holes, and that in the QCD effective field theory it corresponds to a nonlinear soliton of the pion field. Now we argue that the RHIC fireball is this soliton. We calculate the soliton (black hole) temperature, and get $T=4a /\pi$, with $a$ a nonperturbative constant. For $a=1$, we get $175.76 MeV$, compared to the experimental value of the fireball ``freeze-out'' of about $176 MeV$. The observed $\eta/ s$ for the fireball is close to the dual value of $1/4\pi$. The ``Color Glass Condensate'' (CGC) state at the core of the fireball is the pion field soliton, dual to the interior of the black hole. The main interaction between particles in the CGC is a Coulomb potential, due to short range pion exchange, dual to gravitational interaction inside the black hole, deconfining quarks and gluons. Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

The case for mini black holes

Geodesics in Kerr space-time, as predicted by the theory of general relativity. Small black holes produced, for example at colliders, are expected to be spinning. Image: Numerical simulation by Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert Einstein Institute (AEI); visualization by W Benger, Zuse Institute, Berlin/AEI

Approaches of the Gauss-Bonnet type, which include quadratic terms in scalar curvature in the Lagrangian, are good candidates for a description beyond general relativity as they can be supported both by theoretical arguments (heterotic strings in particular) and by phenomenological arguments (Taylor expansion in curvature). In such a case, the coupling constant of the Gauss-Bonnet term, namely the quantum character of the gravitational theory used (and the link with the underlying string theory) can also be reconstructed and the LHC would become a very valuable tool for studying speculative gravitation models.

Other promising avenues are also being investigated for new physics. Firstly, the black holes formed may be excellent intermediate states for highlighting new particles. When the collision energy is higher than the Planck scale ED, the cross-section for the creation of black holes is quite large (~500 pbarn) and has no suppression factor. Moreover, when the temperature of the black hole is higher than the mass of a particle, the particle must be emitted during evaporation in proportion to its number of internal degrees of freedom. There is thus a definite potential for the search for the Higgs or for supersymmetric particles in the evaporation products of black holes, possibly with cross-sections much greater than for the direct processes. Finally, taking account of a D-dimensional cosmological constant also modifies the evaporation law. If the constant is sufficiently high - which is possible without contradicting the low value measured in our brane - the temperature and the coupling coefficients with the entities emitted could be the signature of this particular structure of space-time. It would be quite neat and certainly surprising that a measurement of the cosmological constant in the bulk should come from the LHC!

Microscopic black holes are thus a paradigm for convergence. At the intersection of astrophysics and particle physics, cosmology and field theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity, they open up new fields of investigation and could constitute an invaluable pathway towards the joint study of gravitation and high-energy physics. Their possible absence already provides much information about the early universe; their detection would constitute a major advance. The potential existence of extra dimensions opens up new avenues for the production of black holes in colliders, which would become, de facto, even more fascinating tools for penetrating the mysteries of the fundamental structure of nature

Public Service Announcement: Black Holes @ RHIC by John 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.

No Black Holes Today, Thanks

As George Musser remarked to me in an email,

Egads, what a mispresented story. Nastase says they might be *dual* to black holes -- a relation of interest in string theory, but hardly the same thing as an honest-to-god black hole.

Exactly. The point of Nastase's paper is not that the RHIC fireball may be a black hole but that it might be described by the same math used for black holes. Such duality is vital in modern physics, because some problems are easier to formulate and solve within one mathematical framework rather than another, although both are applicable.

Now, if you want to know about the real prospects for making microscopic black holes by colliding particles in an accelerator, watch for the May issue of Scientific American, which will, by happy coincidence, have a feature on that very subject.

See:

Microstate Blackhole Production

Some Distant Bounding Surface

Cosmic Variance's Very Own: Strangelets in 10 or 11

Cosmic Variance's very own.

Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo found that if so called micro-black holes, which are smaller than the nucleus of an atom, exist, they can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions. If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. Such a collision could happen at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which will become operational next year. Once created, the micro-black hole decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons, which are easy to detect. Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos, Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo solved complex equations to determine if our universe has 10, 11, or more dimensions — perhaps too many dimensions to be explained by critical string theory.

So what is the experiment that is being produced?

Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos,

While I consider the state itself, the thoughts of ICECUBE come to mind. This previous ICECUBE post on this is extremely helpful.

What is also helpful is to remember what the collision process produces and how we can see this process in relation to cosmic collisions. Not just in the colliders themself. While we might of debated the strange matter below, I enlist the idea of the gravitonc considerations and maybe it is not altogether clear, it is with some satisfaction that such thinking of dimensional attributes are actually given parameters with which to work?

Strange Matter (12 Feb 2006)

Some theories suggest that strange matter, unlike neutronium, may be stable outside of the intense pressure that produced it; if this is so, then small substellar pieces of strange stars (sometimes called strangelets) may exist in space in a wide range of sizes all the way down to atomic scales. There is some concern that ordinary matter, upon contacting a strangelet, would be compressed into additional strange matter by its gravity; strangelets would therefore be able to "eat" any ordinary matter they came into contact with, such as planets or stars. This possibility is not considered likely, however.

Strangelets are thought to have a net positive charge, which is neutralized by the presence of degenerate electrons extending slightly beyond the edge of the strangelet, a kind of electron "atmosphere." If a normal matter atomic nucleus encounters a strangelet, it will approach until it begins penetrating this negatively charged atmosphere. At that point it will start to see the positive electrical potential and be repelled from the strangelet. Sufficiently energetic nuclei, or neutrons (which are unaffected by electrical charges), can reach the strangelet and be absorbed; the up/down/strange quark ratio would then readjust by beta decay.

See:
Phases of Matter for Reference

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions -- or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions -- behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

It is easy to see the difference in viscosity between a jar of honey or molasses at room temperature and a glass of water. The honey is much thicker and more viscous, and it pours very slowly compared with the water.

Using string theory as a measuring tool, Son and colleagues Pavlo Kovtun of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Starinets of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, have found that water is 400 times more viscous than black hole fluid having the same number of particles per cubic inch.

See:

Blackhole Creations

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Microstate Blackhole Production

Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

Accretion Disks

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

What Are those Quantum Microstates

History of the Superfluid: New Physics

Nice Picture above.



It is really confusing for me sometimes so I have to revisit the set up, to make sure I have things slotted to the way it is being used to penetrate reductionistic views, that help us understand the new physics that emerges from Gold Ion collisions.

So what is a color glass condensate? According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, when a nucleus travels at near-light (relativistic) speed, it flattens like a pancake in its direction of motion. Also, the high energy of an accelerated nucleus may cause it to spawn a large number of gluons, the particles that hold together its quarks. These factors--relativistic effects and the proliferation of gluons--may transform a spherelike nucleus into a flattened "wall" made mostly of gluons. This wall, 50-1000 times more dense than ordinary nuclei, is the CGC (see Brookhaven page for a letter-by-letter explanation of the CGC's name). How does the gluon glass relate to the much sought quark-gluon plasma? The QGP might get formed when two CGC's collide

So you say that the particles are supported by the HE⁴ Superfluid, then how does that energy leak off into the extra dimensions? Hmmmm. As thread unfolds below? What are these strangelets that are catapulted beyond the collider? Porous induced shell casing?

As well as bringing the accelerator's counter-rotating beams together, LHC insertion magnets also have to separate them after collision. This is the job of dedicated separators, and the US Brookhaven Laboratory is developing superconducting magnets for this purpose. Brookhaven is drawing on its experience of building the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which like the LHC is a superconducting machine. Consequently, these magnets will bear a close resemblance to RHIC's main dipoles. Following a prototyping phase, full-scale manufacture has started at Brookhaven and delivery of the first superconducting separator magnets to CERN is foreseen before the end of the year.

Bose Nova revisited

I wanted to bring this to the surface again for inspection, as this comes out of the work another fellow and I had discussed at length as we shared perspective on the nature and dynamics geometrically inclined.


Accretion Disk

Sometimes, if one does not realized what is governing the thought process, why and how would such things not make some kind of sense. As we move our perceptions ever deeper into the workings of the reductionistic world and find, that these results are being meet in a theoretical sense, as developing well along experimental one too.

As a layman these views are important to me ,more then the cyncism that pervades the supposed debate on model assumption. While the cynic provides no service other then being that. I have learn to see where the patience and developemental attitude requires a more conducive field of opportunity to bring out the best in each of those scientist that very quickly, the desired approach, is being gone after.

So herein lies a little history, and the synoptic event that is holding my thoughts today.

Do the Bosenova

To set a BEC swirling Ketterle's team shone a rotating laser beam on it while holding it in place with strong magnets. The experiment is like "stroking a ping-pong ball with a feather until it starts spinning," muses Ketterle. The surprising thing was that suddenly, a regular array of whirlpools appeared in the BEC. "It was a breathtaking experience when we saw those vortices," recalls Ketterle. Researchers had seen such whirlpools before (in liquid helium and in BECs) but never so many at once. This array of superfluid whirlpools was exactly the kind of storm system astronomers predicted would swirl beneath the iron crust of a neutron star.

Evidence for the swirling depths of neutrons stars is based on the fact that some neutron stars are pulsars - the emit a powerful beam of radiation as they spin - like a cosmic lighthouse. The pulses are very regular but occasionally there is a glitch and a pulse might come slightly too early or too late and it is these glitches that are thought to be due to superfluid vortices hammering into the inside of the neutron star's crust.

Ketterle adds that attractions between atoms in a BEC could parallel the collapse of a neutron star so emulating the distant and massive in the laboratory too. The explosive collapse of a BEC, dubbed a "Bosenova" (pronounced "bose-a-nova") by Wieman releases only a tiny quantity of energy, just enough to raise the temperature of the BEC by 200 billionths of a degree. Supernovae release many times the energy.

So while I had drawn attention to the process afew years ago that we had discussed, it was important that the very idea of a geometrical process that encompass all the information we currently have, has been filed to specific areas for consideration.

While the tidbits placed our perspectives all over the map, and held the idealization of the geometry to Feynman's toy models, a greater implication existed that few of realized as we can read about Dirac and the way in which he sees. While I had not been blessed with such a mathematical mind, it seems my vision of things are quite capable, while speaking about reductionistic proceses intuitive roads that lead to the developmental understanding of the nature of the supefuid. A place in which flatspacetime geometry would allow you to consider properties that ask us to explain what this emergent property might be.

So, if such supersymmetrical idealization was to exist what was this place to say about what began here, or there, in the expression of our universe? Something had to be created that was new to us in our assessment as "new physics." So what was produced? Where did this avenue and funnel allow such an expression that we would look at the bose nova expressing itself, in a model approach.

Whirling atoms dance into physics textbooks

Superconductivity is superfluidity for charged particles instead of atoms. High-temperature superconductivity is not fully understood, but the MIT observations open up opportunities to study the microscopic mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

"Pairing electrons in the same way as our fermionic atoms would result in room-temperature superconductors," Ketterle explained. "It is a long way to go, but room-temperature superconductors would find many real-world applications, from medical diagnostics to energy transport." Superfluid Fermi gas might also help scientists test ideas about other Fermi systems, like spinning neutron stars and the primordial soup of the early universe.

Historical Perspective

Eric Cornell

Carl Wieman

Wolfgang Ketterle

2001 Nobel Prize in Physics

Neutron star

M. Coleman Miller

Today and the New Physics



So now that you see that this process is a interesting one, it is necessary to see how such comparative views on a cosmological scale could have been ever immersed in the microperspective.

This has been my attempt at bringing the place for persepctve into line so that such "new physics" woud have captured the layman's mind. Found the seed bed for new maths, to have created a visionary world that could have arisen from this point on the brane, that such circles, had a greater meaning then one could have ever realized.

What was happening outside of our colliders that we could speak to what was happening inside of the colliders? This is amazing story, as we now see that events happening with high energy particles, have made themself known in our immediate envirnment to have said what can exist here now in such weak field manifestations, that we had graduated from the normal gravity wave perception GR lead us from, and sent us too?

Many Holes?

So now that a cosmological event has captured our mind, the big bang taken us to the first microseconds of our universe, the supersymmetrical view realized, what say we see the possiblility in those new bubbles that arise from Dirac's Sea?

Each hole while existing within the frame work of a supefluid state madeit possible for us to realize that such expressions would have happen at such micro levels that we had been thinking about how we send our measures to such levels? The new physics is what had been strange to our normal way of thinking and now?

It would have been my hope that bringing five different people together in the Cosmic Variance scheme of things, would have created the perfect group, as to bringing persepctive and varied opinion together in perception into the family and said how nice that these different perspectives were really one aspect of the whole picture?

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCube

...the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

Albert Einstein

Sometimes if we paid attention enough, the neurons seem to fire appropriately and the detachment of the ideas seemingly distant from one another, become illuminated and connected? Imagine it taking place in Clifford's other office.

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.

Such a cognitive fucntion then would be important as these math symbols arose in our minds. Possible new mathematical models in which to describe the nature we see around us. So one makes sure they have a pad and pencil, while they ventured away from the regime, with which the mind has been so intensely engaged?

Now being so far from the understanding of these mathematics, I can only hope to understand the concepts as they unfold in a geometrical insight, while I try to make sure I understand them in relation to abstract thinking.

SNO on the go – at last!

Over the past 30 years, five different experiments have sought to measure the flux of these elusive particles from the Sun (produced by the same nuclear processes that make it shine) and have consistently come up short of theoretical predictions. One explanation is that the neutrinos emitted ‘oscillate’ into another variety of neutrino which past experiments could not detect.

Within the IceCube collaboration the Univ. of Uppsala and the Univ. of Berkeley have joined the DESY initiative. The DESY team is also in close contact to the groups in Europe, the USA and Asia which are working on acoustic detectors for Neutrino-Telescopes installed in water. Details on the different projects have been presented on the First Workshop on Acoustic Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Detection held at Stanford in September 2003.

The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).

Some understanding of the dual nature of blackholes is needed here in order to understand what is "produced" and how this is "spread out."

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

Before engaging article below it is important that the differences be noted between strangelets(strange quarks), and the distortions in neutrino properties. If it is understood the microstate blackholes are created, then the dispersion of other particle in the atmosphere give us indications and consequences gained from dual nature of the blackhole.

I am confused here, and this point of interactive consideration is holding my mind as to why both these situations together are important. The difficulty may come from from the immediate association, while reocgnition of these two have been raised from the event and collision.

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

Strangelets - sometimes also called strange-quark nuggets - are predicted to have many unusual properties, including a density about ten million million times greater than lead. Just a single pollen-size fragment is believed to weigh several tons.

They are thought to be extremely stable, travelling through the galaxy at speeds of about a million miles per hour. Until now, all attempts to detect them have failed. A team of American scientists believes, however, that it may have found the first hard evidence for the existence of strangelets, after scouring earthquake records for signs of their impact with Earth.

See:

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Phase Transitions

While I am reading the discussion on cosmicvariance posted by Sean, Why 10 or 11?,I am struggling to see in ways that a lot of us are not accustom too. So for every way that is being presented for the layman, the struggle is to undertsand the relatinship to dimensional perspectve as shared by those who are speaking and clarifying.

What is held in the mind of one who would encompass all this from a event like the Gold Ion collision process, setting the stage for a comprehensive view, being talked about there?

I struggle.

While reading this, this is ole news, but if you hold it in context of what is being talked about in the abstract terms about "what began in the beginning," such associations are important for me as I delve into what is making sense and what isn't.

Earlier such a schematic revealled to us in earlier cosmolgical thinking/linking from the time from the big bang, would be ripe for associative analogies, to help push perspective? Well, it does for me. Of course, I am going beyond Steven Weinberg's first three minutes.

Understanding the nature of matter requires knowing the boundary between its different phases, and how it changes from one phase to another. For example, imagine trying to understand the nature of water without knowing that under the right conditions it can be transformed into ice or steam. To understand the nature of atomic nuclei, scientists have long treated the nuclei as tiny drops of liquid, for which the physical properties and behaviors have been well-characterized

.

Cosmic Rays Collisions and Strangelets Produced?

I like to think of Enlightenment in another way Jaffe:)

While we had focused our attention on the airs about the earth, how would it been possible for us earthlings to push back the limitations on on our views that we could have seen cosmological data in context of all that we do in the environment?

See QuarkStars on this.

The collisions are strange: PHENIX can identify particles that contain strange quarks, which are interesting since strange quarks are not present in the original nuclei so they all must be produced. It is expected that a Quark-Gluon Plasma will produce a large amount of strange quarks. In particular, PHENIX has measured lambda particles. There are more lambda particles seen than expected.

I thought I would go over existing post I made in April of 2005 (se revised version below)and correct some of the links that would be more appropriate to information released in the Blogs of Reference Frame, Cosmic Variance and Not Even Wrong's site about "Amanda and ICECUBE."

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

These characteristics of superfluids are very interesting things to consider, as well as what is prodcuerd in "this action" as we are taken to the supefluid created. Think indeed, that this blackhole "is" the superfluid, and the strangelets, what are these? These never existed, until the superfluid was created?

But in the 10 dimensions of string theory, the fluid of a black hole isn't like other fluids. Space-time is considered to be flat in our perception, Son said, and five of the extra dimensions are compacted into a small, finite sphere. In the remaining dimension, however, space is curved. Evaporation doesn't occur in this dimension, he said, because as particles radiate from the fluid they strike the curved edge of the dimension and are sent bouncing back into the black hole.

These links help set up the thinking for information outside of LHC, that was given for perspective back earlier by John Ellis. The leading perspective on Microstate blackhole production was given then as well in the post with Quark Gluon perspectives, about strangelets produced.

While I had thought these relevant to Dark energy creation in our Cosmo, I did not point directly to the nature of these strangelets gathering at the center of our planet. You had to follow all these posts in order to understand the effect of microstate production, not only in RHIC or LHC, but in the cosmic perspective gained from Pierre Auger experiments as well.

I gave early history consideration so that you might understand a early concern of what mankind might have garnered in thinking, when in actuallity, this was happening naturally every time the cosmic rays penetrated the airs around the earth.

You might well see now that these considerations have been logically followed and there has not been much help as I had been laying the ground work for how perspective is garnered about gravitational considerations. These though are quickly dissipating blackholes created in the airs, around this planet.

Cosmic rays are nuclei and elementary particles always falling very fast on the earth from the universe. Enormous number of cosmic rays are always passing through our bodies. Cosmic rays was discovered by Victor Hess, who is an Austrian physicist, on 1912. He went up to the high altitude of 4000 meters by a balloon and found the ionization rate of the atmosphere is raised at the higher altitude by cosmic rays. After that, cosmic rays have been studied extensively and progressively, and mysteries in the Universe and the Nature are being revealed.

Cosmic rays come from the neighborhood of the Earth and also far galaxies. Galactic and extra galactic cosmic rays are considered to be accelerated at dynamical astronomical objects, such as supernova remnants, neutron stars,and active galactic nuclei. After far-reaching long traveling, they plunge into the atmosphere and bring about nuclear interactions with nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen in the air. The extraterrestrial cosmic rays which come from outside the earth are conventionally called primary cosmic rays, and newly produced particles via the nuclear interactions are called secondary cosmic rays. The main components of the secondary cosmic rays are muon, neutrino, electron, gamma ray, and neutron. While electrons and gamma rays are absorbed into the air, muons and neutrinos can be observed even under the ground.

Of course, this could all be speculation and misconceptions garnered in wrong thinking. So I'll leave it to the experts to correct the disemmination that would affront theoretical positions and hopefully I'll see such corrections. :)

Update: Bloggery updating does not seem to be working, so I will recreate the post here for examination.

4/16/2005

Cosmic ray experiments must overcome tremendous obstacles. The flux of particles above 10¹⁹ eV is extremely low (about 0.5 km-2yr-1sr-1), so detectors need to probe a large effective area to detect sufficient flux. This requires earthbound observatories. Consequently, the high energy particle is detected indirectly, as cosmic ray primaries entering the Earth's atmosphere interact with atmospheric nuclei to produce large cascades of relativistic secondary particles known as extensive air showers.

It somehow seems appropriate, that having been given some hint fom John Ellis of his research and interests, that the historical record could some how be brought into view. The appearnce of these references enhance later log entries on this site. A sort of moving backwards to get to the esence of what has happened in astrophysics and the journey tounderstand the nergies involved that speak to the idea of particle shower creation that had been consistent with reductionistics view we have gone through in the research of string theory.

The highest energy particle ever observed was detected by the Fly's Eye in 1991. With an energy of 3.5 x 10²⁰eV (or 56J), the particle, probably a proton or a light nucleus, had 108 times more energy than particles produced in the largest earth-bound accelerators. The origin of the particle is unknown. At such a high energy, and with its assumed charge, the path of this particle through the cosmos would have been relatively unaffected by galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. Yet no plausible astrophysical source is known along the arrival direction, within the maximum possible source distance imposed by collisions with photons of the cosmic microwave background. This event remains a mystery! It is clear that it existed, but there is no obvious explanation for its source.

These are some of the links that follow the early hisotry of our observations, so that we underrstand well that such cosmic rays are still viable arena for the understanding of these interactions. Sean Carroll may create the April's fool joke on mass migration from particle reductionistionism to astrophycics, but the truth is what is learnt is very applicable to both arenas and what had been learnt, can never be forgotten as we move our observations to the FLY'EYE

Collision Course Creates Microscopic "Blackholes"

Pierre Auger Observatory

Cosmological and Microstate Blackholes

Early history developement is sometimes important to understand the trends that intermingle began in branches of High Energy Particle Research and Cosmic particle research. We understood well the limitation that we would run into for the size of the coliders necessary for such observations that having understod the limits reached in this regard we see where one branch will push us to consider the world around us and the inertactions developing towards the understanding of thes ecosmic showers that we are experiencing.


Extremely energetic cosmic rays interact with the cosmic background photons via pair creation and photopion production and lose their energies during their trip. Therefore there is upper limit of distances which they can propagete in the space with a given energy. The above figure shows this limit (so called attenuation length) in case of cosmic ray protons. You see the 2x10^20 eV particles cannot propagate longer than 30 Mpc (100 million light years), which sets the limit concerning the location of possible sources.


Other Information Shamelessly Boorrowed:

Search for Diffuse Cosmic Gamma Rays above 200 TeV
Cassiday, G.L. et al.1991, Ap.J., 375,202.

A Search for Evidence of Point Sources in the Cherenkov Flash Data From Fly's Eye II
Elbert, J.W. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,265.

Search for Point Sources of U.H.E. Gamma Rays Using the Utah Cherenkov Array
Corbato, S.C. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,281.

The High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires): Parameters and Motivation
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,688.

Description and Status of the High Resolution (Hires) Fly's Eye Experiment
Au, W. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,692.

Observations of Real and Simulated Showers Using the First Two High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires) Mirrors
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,696.

Study of Extensive Air Showers (EAS) Detected with the Fly's Eye and the UMC Air Shower Array
Green, K.D. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,347.

Shower Simulations for the Fly's Eye
Gaisser, T.K. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,413.

Limits on Deeply Penetrating Particles from the Fly's Eye Detector
Cooper, R. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,623.

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

In accretion disks how would this counter intuitive recognition of the Jet have been incorporated into what could have been ejected as anti-matter creation? Doing the Bose Nova maybe?

Killer plasma ready to devour the Earth Reports by Robert Uhlig David Derbyshire and Roger Highfield
(Filed: 07/09/2001)

By colliding gold nuclei at huge energies, the RHIC is investigating "quark-gluon plasma", a state of matter in which the fundamental sub-nuclear particles, called quarks and gluons, become unstuck and swill around in a kind of particle soup that should have been around shortly after the Big Bang.

Dr Allanach warned that if experiments with the RHIC go wrong, it could produce a new hypothetical kind of particle called the killer strangelet.

In a catastrophic chain reaction, the killer strangelet would gobble up nuclei until it had eaten a million billion, when its weight would pull it towards the centre of the earth.

This isssue is important to me for a number of reasons. One of which is the Risk assesment, and how something could be gobbled up. These were ole concerns that began to appear around 2001, in the understanding of blackhole creation in the colliders.

Since then what has come about is the recognition of this new superfluid states that would help propel thinking as a measure of what could have began from a particle state collision that we have gone to enormous energies in which to concieve, as to what took place at the beginning of this universe.

By grasping the understanding of strangelets and the relationship gained in understanding what effects can be creaetd by producing collisions, the resulting product created in the form of Quark Gluon plasma as a superfluid, how would such creation see the use of this as a possibility recognizing "counter intuitive" thinking in the apprehension of what flat spacetime as a measure would have signalled there?

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

According to the scientists, both events are consistent with an impact with strangelets at cosmic speeds. In a report about to be submitted to the Seismological Society of America, the team of geologists and physicists concludes: "The only explanation for such events of which we are aware is passage through the earth of ton-sized strange-quark nuggets."

Professor Eugene Herrin, a member of the team, said that two strangelets just one-tenth the breadth of a hair would account for the observations. "These things are extremely dense and travel at 40 times the speed of sound straight through the Earth - they'd hardly slow down as they went through."

Strangelets then come to mind as a possible scenario worth considering in a geometrical sense, as to what the beginning is, out of the length that we would go to track back from those same collisions processes. Our mappers would have to be very busy and detailed in their discriptions to help us see how such cosmic strangelets could have been recorded in current data.

In general, AMS is trying to study the sources of cosmic rays. These sources include ordinary things like stars and supernovae, as well as (perhaps!) exotica like quark stars, dark-matter annihilations, and galaxies made entirely of antimatter. Each astrophysical source emits a particular type of cosmic rays; the rays migrate through space in all directions; we detect the ones that pass near Earth. With careful theoretical modeling, we figure out how astrophysical objects leave their "fingerprints" in cosmic rays, and we figure out how to measure that fingerprint (or the absence of it!). Sometimes the fingerprint is the presence of a whole new type of particle (like an anti-helium or strangelet); sometimes, the fingerprint is an unusual feature in an energy spectrum (like a dark matter or microquasar signal). Click on the links above (or in the navigation bar to the left) to learn more about AMS's physics goals!

So we were given some perspective on this issue, from then and now, some review as to what takes place in these accretion disks, suddenly hold geometrical insight as to what unfolds in a complete process.

Jet production, from what the superfluid can do in it's characteristic natures, to have seen how this feature operates independant of the buckets rotations.

See earlier references. Counter intuitive realizations manifested in the properties of these superfluids.

Accretion Disks

"For everyone, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another."

Plato

Lubos Motl:

One of the potentially far-reaching consequences of Eva's and Gary's paper is that they seem to have found some stringy realization of the black hole final state by Horowitz and Maldacena.

You have to remeber the reason I am looking at this has to do with how collision processes within LHC and RHIC have demonstrated things happening with the creation of the strangelets.

Of course, I am thinking here of graviton production and where such things would accumulate, and if such a process was held in context of let's say scenarios given to the production of these gravitons held to the center of the earth, it would have been from moving to this 5D consideration, that such model building had overtaken what was limited to the collision process itself.

So one sees now in context of what was productions from the effect of microstate and blackhole construction in the cosmos and having joined these perspectives had to have taken some form.

So having a model in mind in terms of the Laval Nozzle explained here in previous thread such explanations would have move the conisderation on how such gatherings would have instituted in moving physics within the realm of the speculative and theoretical, to have actual models we have created by using LHC and RHIC as tools of graviton production scenarios.

Black holes often shoot out jets of material perpendicular to their accretion disks.

However, more fundamental than the absence of dissipation is the behavior of superfluids under rotation. In contrast to the example of a glass of water above, the rotation in superfluids is always inhomogeneous (figure). The fluid circulates around quantized vortex lines. The vortex lines are shown as yellow in the figure, and the circulating flow around them is indicated by arrows. There is no vorticity outside of the lines because the velocity near each line is larger than further away. (In mathematical terms curl v = 0, where v(r) is the velocity field.)

How would we see such production if superfluid consideration, if the jets were opened to new possibilties?

the graphic shows spiral shock waves in a three dimensional simulation of an accretion disk -- material swirling onto a compact central object that could represent a white dwarf star, neutron star, or black hole. Such accretion disks power bright x-ray sources within our own galaxy. They form in binary star systems which consist of a donor star (not shown above), supplying the accreting material, and a compact object whose strong gravity ultimately draws the material towards its surface.

I still need to do some homework here.

High Resolution 3D Hydrodynamic Simulations
of Accretion Disks in Close Binaries

Michael P. Owen
Theoretical Astrophysics Group
Department of Physics
North Carolina State University



So we look at the LHC model for comparison here in accretions disk energy formations, as we projectile these protons in either direction? Now if we were to lay over top of LHC the very idea of jet production in a macrosense, where would this jet in terms of it's collision process reveal itself if not towards the center of the earth or skyward to do what? Now you have to rmeber you are seeing in a different way that is based on assumption of bulk perspectves.

Have I some how bastardize this process from my ignorance as a layman?

Quark Gluon Plasma II: Strangelets

You have to follow the logic developement, which is confusing, because in one respect "Risk assessment" does not think of cosmic collisions as interesting comparisons to microstate production, yet as I travelled through the information held in context of Pierre Auger experiments, Jaffe's statement from 1999 makes for some interetsing discussion below.

Is it true or not?

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."

There does not appear to be suppression of particles with a high transverse momentum in Deuteron+Gold collisions: In order to confirm the observation of suppression, a control experiment was run by PHENIX in the Spring of 2003. Here, a collision was studied in which a medium such as the Quark-Gluon Plasma is not expected to be formed. The collisions studied were small deuteron nuclei colliding with Gold nuclei. In this case, more, rather than fewer, particles are seen with a high transverse momentum. This observation confirms that the suppression seen in Gold+Gold collisions is most likely due to the influence of a new state of matter being produced, such as a Quark-Gluon Plasma.

There are more protons than pions at high transverse momentum: PHENIX can identify different types of particles, including lighter pions and heavier protons and kaons. PHENIX finds that there are more protons than pions at high transverse momentum. This may indicate that the physical processes that produce these particles are occurring differently in heavy ion collisions. Also, there are almost as many anti-protons as protons, which is another indication that conditions are favorable for the production of a Quark-Gluon Plasma.

A large number of produced particles are observed: PHENIX finds that there are additional particles produced in collisions of Gold ions than what would be expected from measurements of simpler collisions of protons. This fact hints that conditions may be favorable for the production of a Quark-Gluon Plasma. Also, more particles are produced when the ions collide head on.

A large total amount of transverse energy production is observed: PHENIX can measure the amount of energy that comes out sideways, or transverse, to the direction the ions were originally travelling. Like the number of produced particles, the total transverse energy is largest when the ions collide head on. From this measurement, PHENIX estimates that the density of energy in the center of the collision is about 30 times that of a normal nucleus. This fact also hints that conditions may be favorable for Quark-Gluon Plasma production.

The source of produced particles is large and short-lived: Borrowing a technique from astronomy that has been applied to measure the radius of individuals stars, the size of the source volume where the particles are produced has been measured by PHENIX. The transverse size of the source appears to be much larger than the original size of the Gold nuclei, and lives for a very short time. The short life is contrary to what is expected from a Quark-Gluon Plasma and remains a mystery to be solved.

An electron signal above background is observed: PHENIX is unique at RHIC in that it can identify individual electrons coming from the collision, many of which are the result of decays of heavier particles within the collision. PHENIX measures a number of electrons that is above the expected background. The excess electrons are likely coming from decays of special particles with heavy charm quarks in them. Further study of these charmed particles will help us better understand if a Quark-Gluon Plasma has been formed.

Non-random fluctuations are observed, but they are likely due to the presence of jets: During a phase transition, it is typical to see fluctuations in some properties of the system. PHENIX has measured fluctuations in the charge and average transverse momentum of each collision. Thus far, PHENIX reports no large charge fluctuations that might be seen if there is a phase transition from a Quark-Gluon Plasma. PHENIX reports that there are excess fluctuations in transverse momentum, but they appear due to the presence of particles from jets. The behavior of the fluctuations is consistent with the jet suppression phenomenon mentioned previously.

The particles are flowing - a lot: PHENIX can measure how much the particles flow around in the collision. PHENIX observes a significant particle flow effect, which is expected when heavy ions collide. However, those high transverse momentum particles surprise again, and show a flow effect that is not yet understood and may be more evidence for the existence of a Quark-Gluon Plasma.


The collisions are strange: PHENIX can identify particles that contain strange quarks, which are interesting since strange quarks are not present in the original nuclei so they all must be produced. It is expected that a Quark-Gluon Plasma will produce a large amount of strange quarks. In particular, PHENIX has measured lambda particles. There are more lambda particles seen than expected.

I don't have to remind you of why I have taken this route to understand what is taking place as such proton proton collisions reveal some interesting perspectives.

Quark stars signal unstable universeBy William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

In orbit around Earth, a satellite called the Chandra X-ray Observatory surveys the universe for sources of X-rays, which come from hot, active places. Such places include neutron stars, the still energetic corpses of burnt out stars once more massive than the Sun. When such stars use up their hydrogen fuel they explode into bright supernova, then their cores collapse into an extremely heavy ball of neutrons enveloped in a thin atmosphere containing iron and other debris from the explosion. In the core of the dying star, extreme pressure breaks atoms down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and electrons combine into neutrons, and the remaining material is so heavy that one tablespoon of it weighs about four trillion pounds.

But they noticed something very odd?

A Black Hole Ate My Planet

In 1995, Paul Dixon, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, picketed Fermilab in Illinois because he feared that its Tevatron collider might trigger a quantum vacuum collapse. Then again in 1998, on a late night talk radio show, he warned that the collider could "blow the Universe to smithereens".

But particle physicists have this covered. In 1983, Martin Rees of Cambridge University and Piet Hut of the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, pointed out that cosmic rays (high-energy charged particles such as protons) have been smashing into things in our cosmos for aeons. Many of these collisions release energies hundreds of millions of times higher than anything RHIC can muster--and yet no disastrous vacuum collapse has occurred. The Universe is still here.

This argument also squashes any fears about black holes or strange matter. If it were possible for an accelerator to create such a doomsday object, a cosmic ray would have done so long ago. "We are very grateful for cosmic rays," says Jaffe.

Circle of Trust

"Particle physics is the unbelievable in pursuit of the unimaginable. To pinpoint the smallest fragments of the universe you have to build the biggest machine in the world. To recreate the first millionths of a second of creation you have to focus energy on an awesome scale."

The Guardian

If one understod this observation held to the nature of the very small, one might see how such observations as Brian Greenes could place a six foot tall human being in a piece of the beginning.

Of course I am outside of the "circle of trust" :) here in terms of debating the essence of what scenario's might have an influence on the "safety of humanities concerns" while a whole vast network of scientist and all the like, work in the society around LHC.

There are 1800 physicists (Including 400 students) participating from more than 150 universities and laboratories in 34 countries.

It would be a career suicide for someone within these years established, to say such a thing counter to what had taken from 1955 to what it has become what it is today.

Here Peter Woit might be happy to know that experimental processes have instigated a whole history of developement that is ongoing through trial runs and the sort, for those who will track these histories from the beginning of collision process.

So "Risk assessment," although we had been presented with this outfit in concert from the developing perspective of questions dated to 2003, are asking in light of concerns, how it can be of detriment to having some influence on society?

So gaining ground from a informative stance on where society is today with it's scientists leading the way is important. Do they have "watch dog process" that determines these factors in advance of any proposals that would initiate scientific concerns and risks attachments sanctioned that the process is okay?

I personally do not think it has to be a behind the scene process, in terms of how the watch dogs in society might have revealled their concerns. Were then, given demonstrable arguments as to why there are no needs to worry.

This process in itself might be telling in terms of how scientists and the experiments that are put forward, are responded too, before the actually implementation.

I don't know how this works and it might be interesting from a societal point of view?

Might I use Peter Woits steadfastness to present thoughts about string theory as an example of why such atttudes would be allowed predominance and encouragement, to present the argements for, and against, as to somethings viability? We know now that the commitment is well documentated in what already exists, so I don't think it to likely at this point one could stop the process.

I would be extremely happy to know that extra diensional work, has no bearing on what is being produced, while we get a clear picture of our universe?

IN Viscosity State Production is ?

Thus, a black hole can be created with such energy packed into the corresponding length scale. These mini black hole will evaporate in 10-88 seconds, losing most of its mass by Hawking radiation. It is estimated that the final burst should radiate a large number of particles in all directions with very high energies. The decay products include all the particle species in nature. The LHC could provide the first evidence for Hawking radiation from such signatures of the black holes. Figure 04a depicts the simulated decay of a black hole inside a particle detector. From the center of the accelerator pipe (black circle) emerge particles (spokes) registered by layers of detectors (concentric colored rings). The sequence from birth to death of a mini black hole with an initial mass of 10 Tev is shown schematically in Figure 04b. It is created by the collision of two energetic particles (a). The scenario suggests that it will emit gravitational and electromagnetic waves as it settles

It's always good to have some idea of the process. So what is the liquid drop?

So there are some things that make the production process a interesting one, and froma layman perspective talk about intuitions taken a leap here. So I made ealier comparsions here because of th enature of the superfluids involved heeree and how developing perspective around them provide for enviromenta cosniderations dealing i the substance of such collisions.

LHC cryogenic unit keeps its cool

The cryogenic system for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN reached a major milestone on 7 April by achieving operation of the unit at Point 8 at its nominal temperature of 1.8 K. The LHC and its superconducting magnets are designed to operate at this very low temperature, making the 27 km accelerator the coldest large-scale installation in the world. Although acceptance tests performed on the surface had already reached the required temperature in 2002, this is the first time that the nominal temperature has been achieved in situ.

Yet here we are thinking about Microstate blackhole production, and we have advanced the ideas somewhat into the reality of the situation. So here in this bottle neck, and I have not seen how this works in reality, so I am guessing here by using analogies to help push my perspective forward. Some of the unique characteristics of superfluids are helping to define the process somewhat?

Getting Ducks in a Row

Energising the quest for 'big theory'
By Paul Rincon

We are at a point where experiments must guide us, we cannot make progress without them," explains Jim Virdee, a particle physicist at Imperial College London

Good to see Joanne contributions here as well as Marks.

Even though Dissident throws up tidbits for the "unlikely scenario of Blackholes" that devour? These were early fears that were propogated by those of us who did not understand. Maybe the new TV show will make itself known here? What has our past shown in this regard?

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.

I was equally dismayed by the understanding that this methods were not understood by dissident, as to the value of Pierre Auger's views containing the very ideas that we see in the enviroment around us. Is it an alternative to how we see particle interactions? Of course. John Ellis made this point very clear, as I have demonstrated through out this site, gaining perspective as spoken by Ellis on information given.

Plato:

The Fly's Eye and the Oh My God Particle John Ellis was instrumental in opening up perspective here. What is happening outside of collision reductionist processes of the colliders

I get a little philosophical myself sometimes, with the hope that "pure thought" can lead me to the very math structure that would be most appropriate. But like anything, there are so many maths in which to talk about the world in such an abstract way, one wonders if they are actually talking about reality? But they are are. :)

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

The ideas around KK are also included, like most, I have a lot to learn. But the KK tower is explanatory about the a lot of things in relation to the energy values that are being assigned here? Just diffrent ways at looking at scattering amplitudes and counting might have looked if we took nature to gluonic perceptions? A granularaization? While at such levels then there are no geometries in which anything can emerge?

DumbBiologist:

There’s no other necessary connection to stringy physics except that it’s a KK theory (I guess the compactified dimensions can still be pretty big compared to the Planck length…perhaps they have to be?). It’s not obviously related to quantum gravity, anyway.

So how do you include such "weak field "manifestation in your global perspective(standard model). Some things are recorded, and some can't be seen? So what is the glue that binds:)

A collision had produced the "superfluid" has no place in quantum gravity issues?

He⁴ came from information the beginning, that a Giddings or a Steinberg might have given us about the nature of the "source" of this collision? How would such a thing from this place have figured, this was a place in which to begin to count? So we write it in and hope that such views in context of this "unitary nature" will have revealled all the tragetories of the scatterings, to have said this is a complete view?


Lubos Motl:

When you add a force that you want to treat perturbatively, which should be possible if the success of QED is reproduced by your quantum theory of gravity and electromagnetism, then you are expanding around "g=0" where "g" is the gauge coupling. In quantum gravity, there is a new ultraviolet cutoff "g.M_{Planck}" above which the effective theory breaks down. If "g" goes to zero, then this scale goes to zero, too. The theory therefore breaks down at all scales. You can't expand around the point where gravity is the strongest force because a quantum theory of gravity in which gravity is stronger than other forces is inconsistent.

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?

General Relativity

I took GR because I thought Neil Turok was dreeeamy.

Well I dunno? He certainly got me thinking about brane world collisions, along with steinhardt, that’s for sure. We are most certainly dealing with a cosmological placement here with General relativity, but has been extended, as we look at string/M theoretical successes.



You had to make "certain assumptions I know" in order to get here in the picture, and you had to have some inkling of what gravitational waves were and how they were transmitted.

Completed 720 degree rotations, as "tidbits" of the process which are given to us from a cosmological standpoint.


So what is transmitted in the bulk in terms of "gravitational lensing" has some relation, to what we see in the picture above. Look at the placement of the gravitons in bulk perspective and how they are concentrated on and around the brane.

So it is not without reason that we see bulk perspective as a extension and not scientifically up to the challenege because Peter Woit say so?

Modifications to General Relativity

So "six weeks" we should have known something by now with respect to below statements? Jo-Anne, of cosmic varaince selected this answer next to the Pioneer Anomalie.

Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm

Please don’t get too excited yet about rumors concerning the Eot-Wash test of the 1/r^2 law. We can exclude gravitational strength (|alpha|=1) Yukawa violations of the 1/r^2 law for lambda>80 microns at 95% confidence. It is true that we are seeing an anomaly at shorter length scales but we have to show first that the anomaly is not some experimental artifact. Then, if it holds up, we have to check if the anomaly is due to new fundamental physics or to some subtle electromagnetic effect that penetrates our conducting shield. We are now checking for experimental artifacts by making a small change to our apparatus that causes a big change in the Newtonian signal but should have essentially no effect on a short-range anomaly. Then we will replace our molybdenum detector ring with an aluminum one. This will reduce any signal from interactions coupled to mass, but will have little effect on subtle electromagnetic backgrounds. These experiments are tricky and measure very small forces. It takes time to get them right. We will not be able to say anything definite about the anomaly for several months at least.

As stated maybe this "anomalie" might be significant and for scientists it is necessary such a quirk of nature be seen and understood. I relayed Einstein's early youth and the compass for a more introspective feature that such anomalies present.

The Eotwash Group is a sign of relief, for the speculative signs attributed from other scientists, made this topic of extra-dimensions unbearable and unfit for the general outlay for scientists who did not understand this themselves.

Deviations from Newton's law seen?

So what does Lubos have to say about this in his column?

Lubos Motl:

The most careful and respected experimental group in its field which resides at University of Washington - Eric Adelberger et al. - seems to have detected deviations from Newton's gravitational law at distances slightly below 100 microns at the "4 sigma" confidence level. Because they are so careful and the implied assertion would be revolutionary (or, alternatively, looking spectacularly dumb), they intend to increase the effect to "8 sigma" or so and construct different and complementary experiments to test the same effect which could take a year or two (or more...) before the paper is published. You know, there are many things such as the van der Waals forces and other, possibly unexpected, condensed-matter related effects that become important at the multi-micron scales and should be separated from the rest.

On Relativity again

According to General Relativity, the key qualities of strong sources of gravitational waves are that they be non-spherical, dynamic (i.e. change their behavior with time), and possess large amounts of mass moving at high velocities. So prime suspects should exhibit one or more of the following characteristics.

1. Spinning

2. Mass tranfer

3. Collpase

4. Explosion

5. Collision

As to “online resources” for General Relativity, is there one preference if you do not have access to the Hartle book or the other?

Lecture Notes on General Relativity, by Sean Carroll

Preface
These lectures represent an introductory graduate course in general relativity, both its foundations and applications. They are a lightly edited version of notes I handed out while teaching Physics 8.962, the graduate course in GR at MIT, during the Spring of 1996. Although they are appropriately called \lecture notes”, the level of detail is fairly high, either including all necessary steps or leaving gaps that can readily be filled in by the reader. Nevertheless, there are various ways in which these notes differ from a textbook; most importantly, they are not organized into short sections that can be approached in various orders, but are meant to be gone through from start to finish. A special effort has been made to maintain a conversational tone, in an attempt to go slightly beyond the bare results themselves and into the context in which they belong

Or a link to this one for a historical look?

Relativity
The Special and General Theory