Probing the Perfect Liquid

If you learn to understand the relationship between QGP and the physics underlying hydrodynamic flows then what leads one to believe that the blackholes cannot also create the circumstances, for the process you may observe in the cosmos, "is" directly related to the effects of the "relativistic nature" of flows?

There is no further need from this point to refer to the big bang as a collision process. Focus on the energy and how cosmologically the QGP was gotten too, in a cosmological sense.

And that out of such issuances, "new particle creations" are ignited in possible new universes/physics?

While some like chocolate bars and the bubble nature of candy, some also like the molasses and ice cream? :)

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

Proving that under certain conditions the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to such calculations is an exciting discovery for physicists, as it brings them a little closer to understanding how matter behaves at very small scales. But the challenge remains to determine the properties of the plasma under other conditions.

"We want to measure when the quark-gluon plasma behaves like a perfect fluid with zero viscosity, and when it doesn't," says Lauret. "When it doesn't match our calculations, what parameters do we have to change? If we can put everything together, we might have a model that reproduces everything we see in our detector."

See:

"Lead by Physics," Faces the "Trouble With Physics"

The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory is a world-class scientific research facility that began operation in 2000, following 10 years of development and construction. Hundreds of physicists from around the world use RHIC to study what the universe may have looked like in the first few moments after its creation. RHIC drives two intersecting beams of gold ions head-on, in a subatomic collision. What physicists learn from these collisions may help us understand more about why the physical world works the way it does, from the smallest subatomic particles, to the largest stars


Well I have to deal with first things first here. This article above correlates the one given by Stefan. This is not to contest what you are saying, just to show you the informtaion I myself had gone through to arrive at the conclusions I do.

Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question Risk
By Carolyn Weaver

Seen from above, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, or RHIC, at New York’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, looks like a racetrack. And it is a kind of race track: two “beam pipes” in a tunnel nearly four kilometers around, in which gold nuclei are accelerated to close to the speed of light, and are crashed into each other at intersecting points along the way. Out of the kinetic energy of those collisions, new matter is created for a brief instant: a shower of quarks and gluons, the smallest particles known – and at seven trillion degrees, hotter than anything now in the universe.



Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg
“It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.

You say strangelets do not exist? And that no connection has been found between string theory, and strangelets. I have to then argue my case so you see it in light of what the reductionistic physics is actually doing, while string theory and it's energy values hover overhead of all these interactions. How th epaticle inclination must also include microstate blackhole creation.

So bear with me if you can.

Hi Plato,

strange matter and strangelets are a very interesting topic, but, unfortunately, there has been no experimental evidence for them so far. They are not really connected to string theory either, besides the fact that it was an early paper of Witten that resuscitated interest in them with nuclear physicists, I think.

Strangelets have been thought of as possible culprits for RHIC disaster scenarios (besides the ubiquitous black holes ;-), and as responsible for potential cosmic ray particles beyond the GZK cutoff.

But as far as I know, there has been no experimental verification of any of these ideas (and the world still exists: RHIC has produced no greedy strangelets which would have eaten up the Earth).

In the case of the potential quark star you cite, RX J185635-375, again, and unfortunately, as far as I remember, it came out that the radius determination was not completely safe. Bottomline was that this star could be well understood as a common neutron star. I am not completely sure, though, about the current status of this object, whether it is thought to be a quark star or not.

Anyway, it is a good example for an exciting observation which is reported in the press, but which has to be partially revisd later - only that these revisions don't make in the press releases. I guess it would often be quite interesting to have a kind of follow-up reporting, where one could read what is, eventually, the fate of some discovery that has been announced in the press.

The strange particles I was talking about are not strangelets, but the common hadrons with strangeness, especially the Ξs and the Ωs, with two and three strange quarks, respectively. These are the particles that I had mentioned in my earlier post, and whereof I should finish the second part, finally ;-). You typically find much more of these particles in nucleus-nucleus collisions than in (properly scaled) nucleon-nucleus collisions, which is a strong indication for an intermediate QGP state, where stange-antistrang quark pairs can easily be produced.

Best, stefan

One, as we know can make wide sweeping generalization about the physics and why is it that any position taken by any scientist would not have been one that becomes the point of departure for all scientists? An example her ei the rationship to the Heavy Ion collsions an dstringtheory and by this very nature to the strangelets as postulated.

This article below is to correlate with the article you showed me of 2004, while I had made this ocnlusion myself early in 2006, lets not forget the number of people involved in the "ghost particle, and Pauli" through out the years and what we have seen theoretically of the strangelets as they had been related to the disaster scenario as consequential microstate blackholes created in the RHIC and LHC.

Is this too drastic a scenario to have you think about what all these “particles in press” are saying about the science, that any one scientist themselves might be following to correct? You say, "just get it right?" Well there are many within the blogs who are writers for those articles? Why do you think they are amongst you?

I had noticed the grouping and conversations between blogs that had been developing over the last year and half. I continue to see some of the same people. Some, that constantly referred to the reporting that goes on. So I had to address this or forever be banished to the realm of reporting as someone just profiled.

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

Three models of strangelet production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions have been proposed in the 1980s and 1990s: coalescence [10], thermal statistical production [11], and distillation from a Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) [12, 13]. The first two models usually predict low strangelet production cross sections at mid-rapidity, as verified by measurements of the related processes of coalescence of nucleons into nuclei [14]. If a QGP is created in heavy ion collisions, it could cool down by distillation (kaon emission) and condense to strange-quark-rich matter in its ground state – a strangelet. However, this requires a net baryon excess and a non-explosive process in the collisions [12, 15]. Neither of these conditions is
favored at mid-rapidity in ultra-high energy heavy ion collisions, as suggested by results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL [16]. Recently a new mechanism for strangelet

I want you to have a good look at the number of names listed in this Pdf file as well the universities involve.

Clifford of Asymptotia made this point clear about the vast network of scientists even within the string theory network of people and about who knows whom? Can you possibly know everyone, or, like the paper whose citations are referred to more as we refer to any particular scientist? We then come to see the make up and nature as we hold our views to the particular few.

So before I begin here I wanted to make it clear, that having spent considerable time as hobby and interest about science. It is not without my own motivations that the interest would be the memory of one’s childhood, or the magazine that we looked at, but the reality we are dealing with and what we call the “nature of things.”

An anomaly that cannot be explained nor shall it be removed because of the lack of evidence. It’s just one of those things that you cannot change in the person’s make up who has seen the world in a different way then normal. So shall he endeavor to accumulate all the things that are wrong to destabilization the view of truth of the world just so he can corrupt all those around him?

I ask myself the question about "what is natural" because I seen what scientists were doing to each other about the theoretical/concepts/ideas models that they were adopting in their research, that I wanted to make sure that what I had been researching had been as up to date.

Would one "leave out information that I had assembled" as they deal with me?

As I have said before while the students have been engaged in the classroom I had been following the physics development as best I could. Spent years watching and learning

So here's the thing.

If I did not answer Stefan at Backreaction about the information about strangelets then it might have been left off where Stefan decided too as he continues to show his elementary particle thinking( finish the second part Stefan).

Continued reference to strangelets might everyone think the conclusion as written I the way Stefan has shown it? Would information I had been developing have been less than the standard of what scientists hold as standard. How could anyone know it all? Hold the badge over the trial of LHC or RHIC and say I had broken the law with my insolence and corruptible behavior?:) Non! Qui?

So here again is the conundrum I had placed in front of me as I looked and interacted with the various blogs who have commented on Lee Smolin’s book, “The trouble With Physics.”

But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

Lubos Motl:

Well, I think that even if someone believes that theoretical physics can't be trusted - and many people clearly do - there exists a less scientific argument why the accelerator won't lead to such a catastrophe: the Earth is bombed by a lot of very high-energy cosmic rays and the center-of-mass energy of the collisions is comparable to the LHC energies. So far, these collisions haven't destroyed the Earth, so it is reasonable that some additional collisions we create won't be able to do so either.

While I had these similar thoughts it was not wothpt some basis the Blogett would have pointe dyou to think about strnagelets and then in my own assumptions, the comic particle collsions from what Ellis had taught us to think about. Yes, it was the natural collider in space for sure, and it's "energy values" well beyond what is availiable at LHC.

So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

In strangelets do not exist, I had come to the same conclusion Stefan did about what is "theoretically challenged" might have engaged the thinking mind as to the relationship to what the neutrino may have been in that exercise of the QGP, compared to this one on strangelets.

So I gathered information to help me see the direction the physics was going. Least it escaped the mantra that I had been hearing exemplified in my dealings as best I can.

“Lead by the Physics.” Now I face, "the trouble with Physics."

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

The Fate of our Planet?

Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006

Catching Nature in Action

To capture the particles emerging from powerful proton-proton collisions at the LHC, scientists design and build huge, massive detectors. The CMS detector, about 50 feet tall, relies on an array of particle detection subsystems. The tracker (the subsystem at its core) records particle tracks with ultrahigh precision. The intermediate subsystem, the calorime-ter, determines the energy of the particles escaping the collision. The outermost devices identify muons, heavy electron-like particles that can travel long distances.

Graphic: CMS collaboration

LHCf is a different type of experiment, using the LHC's protons as a source that simulates cosmic rays. It will study how colliding protons cause showers of particles, in particular photons. Analysis of these showers will aid in the interpretation and calibration of large-scale cosmic-ray experiments, which can cover thousands of square kilometers of ground

See:

The wonders of Quark-Gluon Plasma

Allotropes and the Ray of Creation

Just thinking here about "life" in general and dreaming.

As well, this takes us back to the article from Backreaction. This post was generated in response to Q's comment and my subsequent statements that I supplied in turn.

Take "full note of Fermion" discription here, as well as, theoretical understanding implied.



Just to note now that the widget on right called Dialogue of Ideas(Dialogos of Eide)supplies the ability to "rightclick" on name and then copy/paste to box ability. This enhances location and response, that you may have further to any topic.

In this regard, Paul's thoughts on the "Reimann Hypothesis" enters here and the undertsanding that this gave to computerized processes the ability to see ULam as the developemental attitude/geometry of the Carbon, which takes on new allotropic forms.



This illustration depicts eight of the allotropes (different molecular configurations) that pure carbon can take:

a) Diamond
b) Graphite
c) Lonsdaleite
d) Buckminsterfullerene (C60)
e) C540
f) C70
g) Amorphous carbon
h) single-walled carbon nanotube

Review of experiments

Graphite exhibits elastic behaviour and even improves its mechanical strength up to the temperature of about 2500 K. Measured changes in ultrasonic velocity in graphite after high temperature creep shows marked plasticity at temperatures above 2200 K [16]. From the standpoint of thermodynamics, melting is a phase transition of the first kind, with an abrupt enthalpy change constituting the heat of melting. Therefore, any experimental proof of melting is associated with direct recording of the temperature dependence of enthalpy in the neighbourhood of a melting point. Pulsed heating of carbon materials was studied experimentally by transient electrical resistance and arc discharge techniques, in millisecond and microsecond time regime (see, e.g., [17, 18]), and by pulsed laser heating, in microsecond, nanosecond and picosecond time regime (see, e.g., [11, 19, 20]). Both kind of experiments recorded significant changes in the material properties (density, electrical and thermal conductivity, reflectivity, etc. ) within the range 4000-5000 K, interpreted as a phase change to a liquid state. The results of graphite irradiation by lasers suggest [11] that there is at least a small range of temperatures for which liquid carbon can exist at pressure as low as 0.01 GPa. The phase boundaries between graphite and liquid were investigated experimentally and defined fairly well.

Ray of Creation

Concept image of a future integrated terabit silicon optical transmitter containing 25 hybrid silicon lasers, each emitting at a different wavelength, coupled into 25 silicon modulators, all multiplexed together into one output fiber.

It is the "archetectual building" that goes on that we may discern the inherent nature of our pursuites? "Ray of creation," is explicit here, in terms of how such building will go on with photonic formation technologies. While imnde th weight of ole structure the sarches hold up an extreme beauty of the churches design? Gravity weight's down with it's burden?:)

Courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of Pennsylvania Library

Mendeleev's world come true, as we think about the "Rainbow of possibilites" in our spectrum, as well as develope the "basis of perception" that grew from "thematic realizations" from our brightest minds?? Carbon based societies, or further geometrics that remain elusive to us??

So what about the geometrics of all this processing? Our pursuites to Gluonic perceptions where such high energy photons will deliver us informative stylizations to the early events in the cosmo? Angle of perpeptions exist, and what does it say about the photon?

Carbon forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth. Complex molecules are made up of carbon bonded with other elements, especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. It is these elements that living organisms need, among others, and carbon is able to bond with all of these because of its four valence electrons. Since no life has been observed that is not carbon-based, it is sometimes assumed in astrobiology that life elsewhere in the universe will also be carbon-based. This assumption is referred to by critics as carbon chauvinism, as it may be possible for life to form that is not based on carbon, even though it has never been observed.

"Carbon" at the very beginning of the birthing process? Maybe, just in this universe of ours?:)While, moving to the "photonic base" we delve into the spiritual implications of the "observer's choice" of materiality as a "mass enhancement" of our reasoning?

Carbon was not created during the Big Bang due to the fact that it needs a triple collision of alpha particles (helium nuclei) to be produced. The universe initially expanded and cooled too fast for that to be possible. It is produced, however, in the interior of stars in the horizontal branch, where stars transform a helium core into carbon by means of the triple-alpha process. It was also created in a multi-atomic state

So some will not like the "tunes we play," "the concepts" or the "model enhancements" that are less then "the Theory" that Hooft tells us about in his comments in Lee Smolin's book.

So, we are left with the artistically inclined and those whose "thematic" realizations require them to explain to us this anomalistical nature that apparently is waiting out there for us. It is that we just have to discover/remember it?

But until then, we are supposed to be doing science? Ahem! Apparently, we had be doing naught?:)

I then dream.....:)

Numerical Relativity and Math Transference

Part of the advantage of looking at computer animations is knowing that the basis of this vision that is being created, is based on computerized methods and codes, devised, to help us see what Einstein's equations imply.

Now that's part of the effort isn't it, when we see the structure of math, may have also embued a Dirac, to see in ways that ony a good imagination may have that is tied to the abstractions of the math, and allows us to enter into "their portal" of the mind.

NASA scientists have reached a breakthrough in computer modeling that allows them to simulate what gravitational waves from merging black holes look like. The three-dimensional simulations, the largest astrophysical calculations ever performed on a NASA supercomputer, provide the foundation to explore the universe in an entirely new way.

According to Einstein's math, when two massive black holes merge, all of space jiggles like a bowl of Jell-O as gravitational waves race out from the collision at light speed.

Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes. The necessary equations, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, were far too complex. But scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have found a method to translate Einstein's math in a way that computers can understand.

Already having this basis of knowledge availiable, it was important to see what present day research has done for us, as we look at these images and allow them to take us into the deep space as we construct measures to the basis of what GR has done for us in a our assumptions of the events in the cosmo.

But it is more then this for me, as I asked the question, on the basis of math? I have enough links here to show the diversity of experience created from mathematical structures to have one wonder how indeed is th efinite idealization of imagination as a endless resource? You can think about livers if you likeor look at the fractorialization of the beginning of anythng and wonder I am sure.

That has been the question of min in regards to a condense matter theorist who tells us about the bulding blocks of matter can be anything. Well, in this case we are using "computer codes" to simulate GR from a mathematical experience.

So you see now don't you?:)

Is Math Invented or Discovered?

The question here was one of some consideration, as I wondered, how anyone could have delved into the nature of things and come out with some mathematcial model? Taken us along with the predecessors of endowwment thinking(imagination). To develope new roads. They didn't have to be 6 0r 7 roads Lubos, just a assumation. Sort of like, taking stock of things.

So I may ask, "what are the schematics of nature" and the build up starts from some place. Way back, before the computer modeling and such. A means, by which we will give imagination the tools to carry on.

So the journey began way back and the way in which such models lead our perspectives is the "overlay" of what began here in the postulates and moved on into other worldy abstractions?

This first postulate says that given any two points such as A and B, there is a line AB which has them as endpoints. This is one of the constructions that may be done with a straightedge (the other being described in the next postulate).

Although it doesn't explicitly say so, there is a unique line between the two points. Since Euclid uses this postulate as if it includes the uniqueness as part of it, he really ought to have stated the uniqueness explicitly.

The last three books of the Elements cover solid geometry, and for those, the two points mentioned in the postulate may be any two points in space. Proposition XI.1 claims that if part of a line is contained in a plane, then the whole line is. In the books on plane geometry, it is implicitly assumed that the line AB joining A to B lies in the plane of discussion.

One would have to know that the history had been followed here to what it is today.

Where Non-euclidean geometry began, and who were the instigators of imaginitive spaces now that were to become very dynamic in the xyzt direction.

All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

These picture above, belongs to a much larger picture housed in the Raphael rooms in Rome. This particular picture many are familiar with as I use part of it as my profile picture. It is called the "Room of the Segnatura."



The point is, that if you did not know of the "whole picture" you would have never recognized it's parts?

Beyond Spacetime?

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.

Now some people do not like "alternate views" when looking at Sean's picture. But if you look at it, then look at the picture below, what saneness, sameness, could have affected such thinking?

Lisa Randall:

"You think gravity is what you see. We're always just looking at the tail of things."

So we look for computerized versions to help enlighten. To "see" how the wave front actually embues circumstances and transfers gravitonic perception into other situations.



Was this possible without understanding the context of the pictures shared? What complexity and variable sallows us to construct such modellings in computers?



Okay so you know now that lisa Randall's picture was thrown inhere to hopefully help uyou see what I am saying about gravitonic consideration.

Anything beyond the spacetime we know, exists in dimensional perspectives, and the resulting "condensative feature" of this realization is "3d+1time." The gravitonic perception is "out there?" :)

Attributes of the Superfluids

Now it is with some understanding that the "greater energy needed" with which to impart our views on let's say "reductionism" has pointed us in the direction of the early universe.

So we say "QGP" and might say, "hey, is there such a way to measure such perspectives?" So I am using the graph, to point you in the right direction.



So we talk about where these beginnings are, and the "idea of blackholes" makes their way into our view because of th reductionistic standpoint we encountered in our philosophical ramblings to include now, "conditions" that were conducive to microstate blackhole creation.

The energy here is beyond the "collidial aspects" we encounter, yet, we have safely move our perceptions forward to the QGP? We have encounter certain results. You have to Quantum dynamically understand it, in a macro way? See we still talk about the universe, yet froma microscopic perception.

Let's move on here, as I have.

If you feel it too uncomfortable and the "expanse of space quantumly not stimulating" it's okay to hold on to the railings like I do, as I walked close to the "edge of the grand canyon."

So here we are.

I gave some ideas as to the "attributes of the superfluids" and the history in the opening paragraph, to help perspective deal with where that "extra energy has gone" and how? So you look for new physics "beyond" the current understanding of the standard model.

So, it was appropriate to include the graviton as a force carrier? Qui! NOn?

Dark Matter Discovery Announced by Nasa

Q relayed some information between B and Sean, so I thought I would follow up.

One thing that is forefront of my mind here, is lensing, and how photonic expression of the event is govern by the inclinations of gravity. Held to the event. Evidence of this event is then "scattered" throughout the universe?

So how shall we look "back to a time" and then not wonder how we have been held to illusions of what the photon is doing in this "gravitational field" while the events themself unfold?


(Credit: NASA/STScI/G. Bacon)

In the overview of the universe in expression, it is good to see the "new updated versions" of what is entailed in the universe in that flash. I say it is never without the complete view of the standard model and it's extensions, that all it's expressions in such a flash unfolding, would have these things inclusive?

So Gravitons as well.

So how shall we see such "condensation of results" lead from such gathering of gravitons as we look at the events unfolding in this example?

Maybe some more research for myself here, as to what dark matter is?

The hot gas in each cluster was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance, during the collision. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. Therefore, during the collision the dark matter clumps from the two clusters moved ahead of the hot gas, producing the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the image. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative theories of gravity, such an effect would not be seen. Instead, this result shows that dark matter is required.

I haven't been following the results nor the conversation from the annoucement. But now that I have, what will come from reading it?

I'll take a look.

CXC: What's your interest in dark matter? Why is it important to understand the behavior of dark matter?

MM: The nature of dark matter is one of the most important topics in astronomy, so everybody is interested. Little is known about it -- all that the numerous searches for dark matter particles have done is ruling out various hypotheses, but they never got any "positive" results. So any new piece of evidence is valuable.

Emergence: A Point in Spacetime

We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding out that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'."
- Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)

Foundational perspectives are important to me, and are part and parcel of a larger frame of thinking that comes into materiality.



What basis then leads such thinking, that something could manifest from another place and become the material reality with which we deal? I know this is about "what is in the now," yet such recognition of what is "chaotic and has complexity" now becomes an organizational pattern. What is "chaos theory?"

From the untold many constituents in the bulk perspective, "Higgin's" has some new found ways in which he can express himself. He see's new ways of travel in the universe?

What emergent properties would have such conditions and gatherings have on routing new universe from tunnelling found created within cosmological events? Which if reduced too, as QGP states of existance, would produce similar resulting anomalies encountered in superfluid state realities?

Since he is beyond what we are accustom too of the Standard model, then what value does Higgin's play as he is born to the level with which he now embues all of creation. He is strong on "some points," then others?

The Unfolding Universe

There is but one kind of entropy change. Entropy change is due to energy dispersal to, from, or within a system (as a function of temperature.), measured by microstate change: S = k_B ln [microstates _final / microstates _initial ].

If you look to the arrow of time, and "the event from which it sprang," how did such strings become the basis of thinking along this road to what exists in the universe today? It has been assign "a place" in this segment of the time's growth within this universe, and we have been sent "back in time to the reductionsitic valuation" of what is seen in the colliders, to see what is emergent today. But what did they find at the beginning? What shall we find at "the beginning" of any universe?

What effect did strings have on this evolution?

The emergent universe

The breathtaking quality of emergence lies in its broad applicability, from ants to people, and from electrons to galaxies. We assume that we can sing and dance together because we are intelligent and coordinate our behavior, and so it is surprising to see the coordinated chirping of crickets, and shocking to discover that the same principles apply to mindless things such as water molecules arranging themselves in a crystalline structure to form ice. When you get enough things together, and they interact in just the right way, they suddenly shift to coherent behavior. Emergent principles may govern the smallest units of matter, as in electrons humming together within a superconductor, to the largest, as when entire galaxies clump into regular patterns. Scientists across multiple fields have found that such systems don't require a central ringleader directing the way – their self-organization is inevitable, due to the local interactions of nearest neighbors.

Emergence represents a revolutionary paradigm shift away from reductionism (the understanding of the world through understanding the component parts. Scientists working within the revolutionary paradigm of emergence study the organizing principles causing collective behavior across many disciplines.

The EUP is focusing on the following types of emergent systems

A point in space implies that such emergence into the spacetime co-ordiantes, have some "other dimensional relation" beyond what we are saying of 3+1? So of course I am enthralled by such an emergence and what could come into these spacetime coordinates.

So the universe in it's unfolding has certain attributes in it's early phases that amount to the conditions Sean Carroll may sees of it? If this is the case, then that valuation of the universe, in it's unfolding is doing what? It's temperature?

If you "wrap the whole of what this arrow of time is, in a geomtrical sense," then the strings and the time of the universe in "Sean's perspective" is inclusive?

So how do we say such a crunch is to happen? How does such thinking become part of our reasoning, to say that the universe will collapase on itself, and become something new? Will it ever?

Tegmark does not take to such "topological expressions of the universe," yet, if you look at the WMAP mapping of the universe what is it you see besides these points of expression, as some nodal and anti-nodal analogy to the cosmological events? Tunnels, through which we can travel? New energy, being distributed back into the universe, in the form of dark energy/matter?

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

If strangelets have been disproved then what "crazy thoughts" shall we now think of, in what constitutes the "new physics?" Tachyon condensation perhaps?

What is the "false vaccuum" to the "true," when it is geometrically expressed? :)

Star Lite Public Outreach

In regards to the QGP(Quark Gluon Plasma) I thought such a creation important from the ideas of what happens in assessing any beginning?



This thought arose from what was revealled in terms of "Microstate blackhole" production and the circumstances from such gold ion collisions.

If we are lead experimentally to such a place, then what may we say of "reductionistic circumstances" and it's relation to the beginning of the universe?



In my GRand Quantum conjecture, such thinking to have established the origins of "quantum perception" along with the understanding of GR and it's curvatures?

Who would of thought such "an application" and ignore what is driving the perspective around blackhole hole creation? It's "microstate properties?"

Andy Strominger:

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

I pointed out "Strominger" in this case to help direct the "existance of perception" simultaneously of what is being related, not only in our early universe, but from the understanding of what "quantum perception" is doing in relation to reductionistcally driven physics?

Such a "relation and assumption of microstate blackholes," helps to direct supersymmetrical ideas, to what the "collapse of the blackhole is doing" in terms of the creation of this quark Gluon plasma state.

Are they the same in terms of what happens in the cosmological blackhole and what is created in the collider?

Ask a Astrophysicist

The Question:Can you explain to me what quantum gravity is, and if so how does it relate to black holes?

A quantum theory of gravity would involve particles passing 'gravitons' back and forth among themselves. This quantum theory would probably be a more accurate description of gravity, and might be accurate enough to describe the extreme conditions found at the center of a black hole.

They both from what I have understood so far would have needed to account for the "classifications" Strominger had pointed out for us?

What is Blackhole Entrophy?

Suppose we have a box filled with gas of some type of molecule called M. The temperature of that gas in that box tells us the average kinetic energy of those vibrating molecules of gas. Each molecule as a quantum particle has quantized energy states, and if we understand the quantum theory of those molecules, theorists can count up the available quantum microstates of those molecules and get some number. The entropy is the logarithm of that number.

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

One would have had to conclude that the "energy states" are very importnat here, as well as the nature, and the way such a process is related in terms of those reductionsitic energy derivations?

Who is Boltzman? What is Chaos?

In the presence of gravitational field (or, in general, of any potential field) the molecules of gas are acted upon by the gravitational forces. As a result the "concentration of gas molecules" is not the same at various points of the space and described by Boltzman distribution law:

The "energy and decay(gravitonically considered and extended from the implication of GR)" have to be reconciled in our understanding of the blackhole, in regards to the nature of the microstate blackhole perceptions? The "evidentry" particle creations exemplify the energy distributions?

The Fate of our Planet?

Clifford at cosmic variance addresses a fundamental question about the need(?) to populate other planets, versus exploring?

Clifford:

And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future

But of course, as with any thread there is a diversion of thought, so I answer this, while still trying to understand what he meant by the timescale?

A Blackhole ate my Planet?


It's almost worth following the trail of "Risk Assessment" here. Some might remember James Blodgett?

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."

Of course, refering to "cosmic particle collisions",then to have the "issues of strangelets" explained away as well. I mean every journey is fraught with the anxieties of fear. Fear of the unknownas one progresses along the roads to new worlds?



See:

RHIC Animations and Multimedia

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

So where do we stand with the fate of our planet?

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

It's Alive: Cosmic Ray Recordings

I was doing some visiting around to see what Jacque Distler was doing and of course some blog entries are more dear to the heart, when you have followed the history and found correlative statements that bring the subject home for consideration.

Jacque Distler:

Travis Stewart reports that the LHC’s ATLAS detector has seen cosmic ray events, an excellent sign that things are working as they should.

Seen it's value in other ways immediately. So of course speaking on cosmic rays this entry was inviting and of course leads from one thing to another. Finally then, leading you to the very source of the article in question. It is good that Travis Steward gave the updated source indications of his article, for further reading.

Atlas enews

A major milestone for the Inner Detector project has been accomplished in early May as cosmic rays going through both the barrel Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) and Transition Radiation Tracker (TRT) have been successfully recorded in the SR1 building on the ATLAS experimental site at CERN.

Insinuated Problems within Own Blog?

Well after doing some work here to figure out, "what was what," I realized I had spelt John Bachall's name wrong (It should be Bahcall) on the entry url search, which did not show up under that search function as Bachall. Da.



Gosh, I feel like a fool sometimes:)One of those things where the brain is indeed working faster then my fingers on the keys can type.

It does not mean Lubos Motl, that by spelling names wrong like Gellman(Gell-Mann) or Feynmen(Feynman)that one is any less on aptitude, or that if one reads Smolin, they are part of some "other class of people" that you relate.

We have to be nice to people, regardless of their religious leanings "atheistic or not? Or, it is possible, those of older age may call you a heathen? :)

Pierre Auger and John Ellis's work

So herein lies some more information for the lay person who wants to explore what Pierre Auger and others were doing, while John Bahcall was educating us in the ways of cosmic particle collision events.

See Also:

Why Higher Energies

The Blackhole as a Superfluid: It's Viscosity

Writing Your Story of Creation?

"No container is available, and the vaporization must occur in vacuum." Wozniak

With all that energy concentrated in a space about the size of an atomic nucleus, the colliding ions, for a tiny fraction of a second, will reach a temperature one hundred thousand times hotter than the core of the sun - hot enough to "melt" the ions into their component quarks and gluons. By studying the data from millions of these high-energy collisions, RHIC scientists will be able to gather definitive evidence that quark-gluon plasma was formed, and begin to understand its properties.

Thousands of particles are emitted following each head-on collision. Sophisticated detectors have been constructed at four of six collision points around the ring to gather and decipher the enormous volumes of data that are recorded regarding the properties of these emitted particles. Two large detectors, PHENIX and STAR, are several stories tall. The other detectors, BRAHMS and PHOBOS, are smaller and more specialized. Scientists will be analyzing data collected by these detectors during continuous runs in the collider throughout the summer. The scientists anticipate releasing the first results from those analyses sometime at the beginning of next year.

Immediately what came to mind is the reductionist views we have about the beginnings of the universe. The picture above, came to mind. And from it, all the ideas that I had been reading about when I had engaged the topic of the universe in question.

THis is a interesting question and if you read what anyone might of surmized, how different would this simplification of the question be, if it is holding all the answers to what really happened at the start of that universe?

Lubos Motl:

The first one measures the total fraction of the multiverse volume occupied by pocket universes or vacua with the desired value of the quantities. The second one measures the expected density of intelligent life in the given type of vacuum. If defined properly, it is the product of the density of stars,

Keeping sharp on the nature of speculations.:)Well of course "timing is everything" and if one ask a question in one part of the uiverse how could it ever been related to what Lubos writes in his? Well I have to speak to that:)

So right away seeing this is a good question to ask, and based on what one had been learning as they engaged science, how consistant would this story be with what is actually been taking place in science? One guess is as good as another? Or are there simplified versions that we could pass onto our children so that they understood the fullscope of this story of creation.

Now you must remember, as a student and a older one at that, there will always be mistakes. Being granted this reprieve for a time(writing our fiction?), while we look at the question asked, what do I think? Hmmmm.... interesting question.

Schematic diagram of the collision stages in reactions between a 5 GeV hydrogen ion and a gold nucleus: in the initial stage, heat is deposited in the nucleus, accompanied by the knockout of several fast particles. The hot nucleus then thermalizes and expands, eventually undergoing a "soft explosion," or multifragmentation. During this process, the nucleus acts like a molecule that is going from the liquid to the vapor state. (Image courtsey of Vic Viola, University of Indiana.


So at the very top of this page there was a problem right away about such containment, and if I was to ask where and how would such conditions emerge for such a thing as the beginning of the universe to be known, why could I not explain it in my immediate environ, where cosmic particle collsions mimic what we are doing in our colliders?

Is this not simple enough to ask, that such a question could bring perspective not ony from the very beginning of our universe, but to have corralled it to what is happening now. These two things are very important to bring together so that we understand that creation exists in our terminologies, as if every moment has the potential to be created as it was in the very beginning of that universe.

Isn't this stance important to comprehend as I begin my story?

As I have been talking about, for so long, I wonder where it would end, that I soon learnt in mind that such a processes had to be cyclical in nature, yet, how could energy start off in place and go through all the phases to have become contained in the "possibility again" to continue this process.

So here this is another insight into the nature of my story.

One would have to have surmized the very beginning, and some might called is the sea from which all things arise and it is mythical in nature, that all life arose from this sea of possibilty?

While some will take their time to descipher the good book some wil try their hand at the "bibble interpetation Sean gives to the public for consideration." Well my story of fiction still begins with "adam and eve." I have a new version though.:)

To e^- or not to e⁺ :)

Of course in my own artistic rendition, the shakespearean heart arose from my lips touched to ask. "To be or not to be," is not the question.



Of course I would have to give credit to Paul(not in the bible) for his early interpretation of the design shown above so as to wonder about such a procreative design to have said, "this is indeed the measure of our reality while we look back to it's beginning?"

So you needed this measure of "certainty" to ask how is it that such a beginning could have ever emerge from the "values of light" that it could contain information about our beginnings? I know it seems I may be getting too technical for the average Joe?

Based on the no boundary proposal, I picture the origin of the universe, as like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny universes, out of nothing. Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but a few that reach a critical size, will expand in an inflationary manner, and will form galaxies and stars, and maybe beings like us.

So it indeed becomes really difficult to contain the very expansive nature of the universe in such a boundary condition, does it not? So you look for the basis of reality in a way that allows such travel or "tunnelling" to help push the idea I have about my story of creation. It is parts and pieces of the that exemplify our ideas about the origins of nature, to wonder, if that energy began? Where did it?

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

It is very impotrant to set up the "nature of reality" as it began, yet, it is not so simple then to ask that if zeropoint had this basis of reality as well, what existed in this false vacuum, to have it exemplified the resulting information which travelled "through to the universe" as we now know it?

You had to wonder, and know that such phase changes began in the very beginning,and as the universe unfolded, to have given "all that is" a place in this timeline of expression, to have made it, to what is in the nature of the cosmo?

It did not mean that we could not find our moments and secondary showers from such a beginning, not to have traced it back and know, that this beginning point was really never so far away? They do it in the colliders. They have t account for this energy, and some of it is missing.

So containement was a problem, and with it we began to use these analogies for describing "backreaction." Oh, we have some mode of time travel here? Or, that we may have some idea about what is geometriclaly enhanced in our talks, to have actually followed the physics process?

Yes, I did that too.

I referenced tunnelling for very specific reasons, but alas, I too have to ask then that if such dissipated forces are the continued unravelling of that fluid state, then how would such information be released in the secondary shower effect?

The nature of our universe in continued expression?

That means that it left something somewhere for the false vacuum to have initiated the transferance of the original information, back, into the design of the cosmos?

I like analogies for that reason, and if some want to write fiction, while they hold other minds to the constraints applied in our reasoning of that science, then you should be prepared to suffer the consequence of what any mind like that of a Kaku, or Greene, in those extra story telling versions?

You will be targetted for all the insane things you might hence forward say. It's just somethng I noticed when I tried to go deeper into the world that science brings us.:)Scientists can indeed be unkind to each other?

See:

Sonofusion - star in a jar

How Particles Came to be?

The First Few Microseconds, by Michael Riordan and Willaim A. Zajc

For the past five years, hundreds of scientists have been using a powerful new atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island to mimic conditions that existed at the birth of the universe. Called the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC, pronounced "rick"), it clashes two opposing beams of gold nuclei traveling at nearly the speed of light. The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.
During those early moments, matter was an ultrahot, superdense brew of particles called quarks and gluons rushing hither and thither and crashing willy-nilly into one another. A sprinkling of electrons, photons and other light elementary particles seasoned the soup. This mixture had a temperature in the trillions of degrees, more than 100,000 times hotter than the sun's core.

What was the initial energy that distributed the particle natures to have "microstate blackholes" created, while the conditions for other experiments are considered?

There are some things we need to know and I will show this shortly. I know certain people believe I am "ad hocing," but how would you get to the source of the thoughts, if one did not consider the conditions in which thought forms were created? So while we lok at the high energy collision of cosmic particles what are some of the things to watch for?

Forbush Decrease

Scott E. Forbush discovered the surprising inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays

How would you not know, while the timeline has been explained, and a place for such expression would reveal such conditions to have them displayed, that we could think of them from such a beginning?

Where is that? Maybe you had to know about RHIC to understand the full notion of such a superfluids created, to know that such a condition became counter-intutive because of the new physics that it could present?




What is dissapated and how did it get there as other particle conditions are realized? Remember, the initial energy of such a expression was in a more simplified state, before it became as complex as it did in entropic realizations.

New state of matter more remarkable than predicted -- raising many new questions

The four detector groups conducting research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) -- a giant atom “smasher” located at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory -- say they’ve created a new state of hot, dense matter out of the quarks and gluons that are the basic particles of atomic nuclei, but it is a state quite different and even more remarkable than had been predicted. In peer-reviewed papers summarizing the first three years of RHIC findings, the scientists say that instead of behaving like a gas of free quarks and gluons, as was expected, the matter created in RHIC’s heavy ion collisions appears to be more like a liquid.

“Once again, the physics research sponsored by the Department of Energy is producing historic results,” said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, a trained chemical engineer. “The DOE is the principal federal funder of basic research in the physical sciences, including nuclear and high-energy physics. With today’s announcement we see that investment paying off.”

As a product of mind could it be reborn, or burn up, and we are only discussing the philosophical considerations. Phenix, or was that Phoenix, like the bird? Rising from the flames and a renewal, as part of the creation of new conditions?

Scientists May Soon Have Evidence for Exotic Predictions of String Theoryissued by Northeaster University

"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."

What is the Observer's Reality?

"Death, so called, is but older matter dressed
In some new form. And in a varied vest,
From tenement to tenement though tossed,
The soul is still the same, the figure only lost." Poem on Pythagoras, Dryden's Ovid.

When your given a certain amount of energy to work with and all of it is accountable except for a some, what conlcusion are you to draw? Sensibly the mapping is done as to the tragetories of all particles, yet it just didn't add up at the end.

Oskar Klein (left) proposed in the 1920s that hidden spatial dimensions might influence observed physics. He poses with physicists George Uhlenbeck (middle) and Samuel Goudsmit in 1926 at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives

Mini Review on Search for Extra Dimensions With Atlas, by S. Ferrag

Thanks to the high collision energy and luminosity of the LHC, the ATLAS detector will be capable of revealing the existence of extra spatial dimensions in some substantial region of parameter space. The talk will summarize recent studies from the collaboration on different possible signals predicted by models where the dimensions are "large", where they are of size ~TeV^-1 or where they are "warped". These signals include direct emission of Kaluza-Klein states of gravitons, virtual effects of graviton exchange and gauge boson excitations. We shall also discuss the possibilities of observing black holes.

There is no doubt in my mind that the leanings towards mysticism should not have entered the picture when dealing with the science, as you say Sean. Through Education, working with the tangible, there will no doubt people who refuse this on a ideological grounds, as to it's misleadings to a better understanding.

If the concepts of GR are ever moved as they were in the perspective of Einstein's thought Experiment, I would think it would have had it's basis on a solid foundation, yet, it drew a conclusive results in the way we now deal with how we can look at the world?



While this may have appeared confusing, and misleading to people, without a deeper comprehension, it is not without some basis some of us would think about these things, and agree with Einstein.

So let's say that if such a basis was given to thethought experiment shown here, is thought of, would the thinking as to the substance of our very thoughts ever been considered in context of the way in which I had been thinking about these things?




If one had never followed the logic and geometry would it have made sense, that the analogy of Einstein's thought experiment, about a hot stove and pretty girl, would seem less then a viable concept, had Einstein never extended his thoughts from a basis, and foundation of GR? Gravity.

On the Effects of External Sensory Input on Time Dilation." A. Einstein, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.

Abstract: When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity.

As the observer's reference frame is crucial to the observer's perception of the flow of time, the state of mind of the observer may be an additional factor in that perception. I therefore endeavored to study the apparent flow of time under two distinct sets of mental states.

Methods: I sought to acquire a hot stove and a pretty girl. Unfortunately, getting a hot stove was prohibitive, as the woman who cooks for me has forbidden me from getting anywhere near the kitchen. However, I did manage to surreptitiously obtain a 1924 Manning-Bowman and Co. chrome waffle iron, which is a reasonable equivalent of a hot stove for this experiment, as it can attain a temperature of a very high degree. Finding the pretty girl presented more of a problem, as I now live in New Jersey. I know Charlie Chaplin, having attended the opening of his 1931 film City Lights in his company, and so I requested that he set up a meeting with his wife, movie star Paulette Goddard, the possessor of a shayna punim, or pretty face, of a very high degree.

Discussion: I took the train to New York City to meet with Miss Goddard at the Oyster Bar in Grand Central Terminal. She was radiant and delightful. When it felt to me as if a minute had passed, I checked my watch to discover that a full 57 minutes had actually transpired, which I rounded up to one hour. Upon returning to my home, I plugged in the waffle iron and allowed it to heat up. I then sat on it, wearing trousers and a long white shirt, untucked. When it seemed that over an hour had gone by, I stood up and checked my watch to discover that less than one second had in fact passed. To maintain unit consistency for the descriptions of the two circumstances, I rounded up to one minute, after which I called a physician.

Conclusion: *The state of mind of the observer plays a crucial role in the perception of time.*

Same with how GR is reduced from a "larger frame of reference(a quantum microscopic view)," how is it, the probability of any action could have been this one, as I write, or if some thought held to some systemic relation would have found relevance in the weight of our decisions, our choices? I used a scale then, heart and feather and if one associated the gravity of the situation to our thought patterns, how would this pan out in the thinking of emotive thoughts. The discoloration of pure colors, in our expression and emotively realized?

Einstein:Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Fanciful, Yet working with Reason



You may not take your body with you but you will take the emotive realizations, and they can color our views for a time. If we knew how to take control of the positve expression and change our attitudes, I think this is what allows the circumstance to change(our future), if we only let the reactions govern our existance, nothing changes.

We are thinking beings then, making choices, about the way we will react in the future. Following such reactions to the source and continuing to distill them we will possibly find the truer core of the reactionary base with which to consult. What future changes we will take hold of. It doesn't all have to be negative. We don't have to surround ourselves with such paling colors.

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

I tried to follow the history as best I could, and the resulting worries earlier linked in extra links seen below, attest to the research that I followed. Can we safely say now, that strangelets do not exist?

Quantum character of black holesby Adam D. Helfer

Black holes are extreme manifestations of general relativity, so one might hope that exotic quantum effects would be amplified in their vicinities, perhaps providing clues to quantum gravity. The commonly accepted treatment of quantum corrections to the physics around the holes, however, has provided only limited encouragement of this hope. The predicted corrections have been minor (for macroscopic holes): weak fluxes of low-energy thermal radiation which hardly disturb the classical structures of the holes. Here, I argue that this accepted treatment must be substantially revised. I show that when interactions among fields are taken into account (they were largely neglected in the earlier work) the picture that is drawn is very different. Not only low-energy radiation but also ultra-energetic quanta are produced in the gravitationally collapsing region. The energies of these quanta grow exponentially quickly, so that by the time the hole can be said to have formed, they have passed the Planck scale, at which quantum gravity must become dominant. The vicinities of black holes are windows on quantum gravity.

Having been holding onto the thoughts published by Peter Steinberg," Richard and Me how could I refuse to acknowledge that such strangelets might indeed not exist, having been given experimental verification as to procedures resulting in this Risk assessment consultation.

The relations to cosmic correlations were drawn in my research, as I tried to understand what was going on in a everyday scenario, as we saw the elevation to cosmological colliders making the statements that they do.


Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question RiskBy Carolyn Weaver

“It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.

So if I had thought for a moment about John Ellis's contributions to furthering the layman understanding, it was quickly understood that the energies involved had to have many events to conclude what may be happening on such a large scale, might be happening in the colliders. Quite simple really?

Would it be so dangerous that such energy considerations required the work of Star to help ease fears with which the layman population could have turned into a frenzy of religious doomsday scenarios?

Strangelet Search at RHICby STAR Collaboration

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

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