Nature is the Architect

.....and we are it's builders?



So beyond indeed, is the static realization of the structure of things. This is a more definable recognition of something that is very fluid and expressive. It is by our own humanistic natures that we like to compartmentalize?

"There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap. The important thing is not to stop questioning." Albert Einstein (1879- 1955)

While this quote of Einstein is somewhat revealing of what can flash across the mind, it is by intense work that such a time allows for things to gather, and in this work, it will inevitable makes sense. Such cultivation allows for new things to be born and in such nurture and contemplation, something will eventually emerge.

A picture of flux lines in QED (left) and QCD (right).

Although it didn't properly describe strong interactions, in studying string theory physicists stumbled upon an amazing mathematical structure. String theory has turned out to be far richer than people originally anticipated. For example, people found that a certain vibrational state of the string has zero mass and spin 2. According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the gravitational force is mediated by a particle with zero mass and spin 2. So string theory is, among many other things, a theory of gravity!

See: Why Strings

This points to a reductionistic view about the nature of reality. That we are part and parcel creating the constituents of the reality that we see, has a glue that binds, and keeps it together. For each this glue is a process that has meaning for each of us. While one would wonder where such motivation would allow each to perceive it as so one might ask what value is assign each stage of expression to see that such a scale has been reduce to a quality of a kind? It's music?


Cover of Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond by Lawrence M. Krauss
Viking Press

Guide Review - Hiding in the Mirror by Lawrence Krauss
In Hiding in the Mirror, astrophysicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss addresses the concept of extra dimensions, from its appearance in popular culture such as Alice in Wonderland and The Time Machine to theoretical physics areas such as the theory of relativity and string theory. In fact, I would say that the book splits roughly 50/50 between cultural and scientific topics, which is part of the point of the book (that extra dimensions are tied to both areas), but for those who are specifically interested in the scientific aspects there are other books (such as Lisa Randall's Warped Passages) which address the scientific aspects in far more depth.

According to Krauss, extra dimensions have captured the human imagination well before it entered into exploration by physics in the last century or so. The book covers how the concepts were viewed by those in the past, as well as more recent science fiction, such as Star Trek (one of Krauss' favorite topics, as author of the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek). Much of this material is entertaining, but for those who are wanting to get to the heart of the physics, it can feel like filler.

About 100 pages of the book focuses on the recent work to find a unified theory of quantum gravity, focusing predominantly on string theory (with some mention of predecessors). This has been one of the areas where extra dimensions have become extremely dominant. Though Krauss exhibits some genuine skepticism about the track string theory is on, I think calling the book a criticism of string theory would be going a bit far. Krauss is placing string theory within a larger framework of extra dimensional movements in the past, many of which have proved incredibly enlightening and some of which have not done much. It's left to other books to determine whether string theory has any scientific merit.

See:Book Review: Hiding in the Mirror

***

See Also:

Where are my keys?

So string theory is, among many other things, a theory of gravity!

EOT-WASH GROUP(4)

Newton's inverse-square (1/r2) law

The standard model of particle physics is a self-contained picture of fundamental particles and their interactions. Physicists, on a journey from solid matter to quarks and gluons, via atoms and nuclear matter, may have reached the foundation level of fields and particles. But have we reached bedrock, or is there something deeper? Savas Dimopoulos

While in the post previous to this I gave some indication of the gravity from the cosmological point of view, I then took it down to the particle collisions. I again reiterate this, in this post as well.


Source-detector configuration for the 1-m 1/r² test

Newton's inverse-square (1/r²) law is a cornerstone of General Relativity. However, this law has been challenged by many modern theories of gravity and particle physics. The supergravity and unified field theories often run into a new short-range force, with an accompanying new particle, which should appear as a violation of the 1/r² law. More recently, a possible violation of the 1/r² law in the range below 1 mm was suggested by string theories with extra dimensions.

Gravity: Another Example of a 1/R² Law

Two masses at a given distance place equal and opposite forces of attraction on one another. The magnitude of this force of attraction is given by:




where G is the universal gravitation constant (6.67 X 10^-11 Nm²/kg²), m₁ is the mass of the first object in kilograms, m₂ is the mass of the second object in kilograms, and r is the distance between the centers of the two masses, in meters.

It is not without thinking here that what you thought of the "microstate blackhole," could have found it's relevance in the temperatures reached, when seen at this level?


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 ideal experimental test of this new feature of QCD would be to study the flux tube of figure 1 directly by anchoring a quark and antiquark several femtometres apart and examining the flux tube between them. In such ideal circumstances, one of the characteristics of the gluonic flux tube would be the model-independent spectrum shown in figure 2. The excitation energy is p/r because the flux tube's mass is entirely due to its stored energy. There are two initially excited longest wavelength vibrations with identical energies because the motion of the flux tube is in the two symmetrical dimensions perpendicular to its length.

You ever hear of the term, "you can't hit the broad side of a barn?" WEll lets think about this when it comes to the measures of femtometres and such. Classically old, it was not witout some direction in thinking that one could be taken down to certain measures for those same considerations. Barn Yard?

Origin of the (classified) barn

In the luminosity lexicon, a picobarn is one trillionth (10-12) of a barn, and a femtobarn is one quadrillionth (10-15) of a barn... but what's a barn? The distinctive and amusing term originated with two Purdue University physicists working on the Manhattan Project in 1942—and it was classified information by the US government until after World War II.

A History of Physics at Purdue (Gartenhaus, Tubis, Cassidy, and Bray) cites the July 1972 issue of Physics Today in which Marshall Halloway and Charles Baker write of tossing around ideas over dinner until arriving at "barn" to describe the typical nuclear cross section of 10-24 cm2, the effective target area that a nuclear particle represents in a collision. Dining in the Purdue Memorial Union, back in Lafayette, Indiana, Halloway and Baker dismissed "Oppenheimer" and "Bethe" as candidates, then considered John Manley, director of the Purdue group at Los Alamos. They decided "Manley" was too long, and then, as the authors put it in the Physics Today article to:

So here we are looking at what the EOT-WASH GROUP is doing? What is "compactification" in line with any thinking, that the world around us from a cosmological point of view is large(large circle), and that amidst it's reality, exists this finer world of particulars that "we'd only imagine" while the measures to it's finest(small circle) was produce and then energies assigned.

It would be as if you looked at the cosmos and never thought about it constituents "bits and pieces," which make up those cosmological processes. Yet, for me, "circles within circles" would have made me wonder which circle represented which part of the views at any one time, whilst we speak about these energies from one perspective to the next.

Savas Dimopoulos:At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the "Newtonian inverse square law" you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

.....and more here for how perspectve can change once you give a direction in which to think about.

Savas Dimopoulos:At first we faced denial. We had deliberately used the word "sub-millimeter" in our first paper. Physicists were surprised, to say the least, that such a thing was not already excluded experimentally. I remember a stage in 1998 when colleagues wondered if we had not forgotten some crucial experiment. We were not discouraged. No! We gave talks on the ideas, and by July 1998 had analyzed the laboratory and cosmological constraints. That paper marked a sea-change in opinion: physicists began to think this was an interesting idea. By the fall of 1998 we were showing how to do real physics. Now several study groups are taking us very seriously: the high citation rates speak for themselves.
Personally I am not surprised by the reaction. Revolutionary ideas go through a cycle: denial, followed by "okay it is consistent but can you do anything with it?" and finally, once you show how to do real physics, you may get the third phase where many physicists become interested in the field. The same thing happened to me and Giorgi back in 1981 when we first proposed the supersymmetric extension of the standard model of particle physics. Initially there were the usual skeptics but now it is completely accepted.
Oddly, for me, the major competitor to these proposals for extra dimensions is the supersymmetry extension. But let's recall some of the disadvantages of the standard model. First, it shuts out gravity. Second, it has 18 free parameters, many of them very small. Third, the vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude larger than what you would naively guess from the standard model.
Proposing extra dimensions to space is a drastic step. But once you have the extra space you can attribute the smallness of some quantities to the statement that their origin is somewhere far away inside space, just as an astronomer might attribute the faintness of a galaxy to its large distance. For example, maybe the smallness of the electron mass arises because its origin is far away inside the extra dimensions.
My view is that both of the big ideas I have worked on are testable in the next decade by LHC. The two frameworks have complementary features. I'm greatly looking forward to the outcome

Make sure you look at the "compactification" label to the right index

Tomatoe Soup is Physical?

Spacetime in String Theory, by Gary Horowitz


Of course, one get's to thnking about where all this theoretical stuff is taking us, and the result of such conclusions become interesting in having consumed the model assumptions? Having Grokked it?

So how did you get "here" in the "mapping and finding of treasure" in recognition of thoughts that manifest and had taken us on ths wild journey?

Very simply we should see that the "fifth dimensional referencing" is based on a legitmate processes used to extend our thinking beyond what it assumes of 3+1. It existed in "other states" before this? Yes/No? :)

So what we have taken for real in our 3+1 now holds our mind in thinking beyond what it has as a "resulting frame of reference?" We do not ignore the science behind such thinking, as it is progressive in terms of the "theoretical stance" we take. Is it right or wrong? Well that remains to be seen.

Will "gravity waves" one day prove to be right/wrong, or shall we ignore them all together?? What have we spent in order to "refer too this thinking" as we see often of string theory? That it is a "waste of time and is fantasy induced" states of realization?

How did you get there to find your treasure trove? :)

What a Good String Theorist Should Know?

Arthur Miller
Einstein and Schrödinger never fully accepted the highly abstract nature of Heisenberg's quantum mechanics, says Miller. They agreed with Galileo's assertion that "the book of nature is written in mathematics", but they also realized the power of using visual imagery to represent mathematical symbols.

I am a bit of a fanatic when it comes to the visualizations. What benefit might these have for any good theorist? What creative ability is developed, when one sees this way?

To me, as it has been described with Dirac wording that I have spell out many a time, there is also all this "other information" that has to be followed up. I know it. Many science people know it. Maybe sometimes, caught up in all the aspirations for truth, I might not remember it. So this post is here for this purpose.

You have to trust me that I will not be knocking on any good scientists door, being the crackpot that I am, with some amazing discovery.I just don't have time to bother you good science people.:)

Anyway, I thought I should clear up some ideas people have about learning. Getting some insight into what is being talked about in regards to theoretical ideas being borne, what learning the older folk like me can look forward too. The last part of this post is in regards to Think Quest comments on string theory.

Personally, I think a good theoretician needs to know a lot.

I found information provided by Gerard t’ Hooft which gives one a a good base to what he thought we should be doing. So I wanted to include some of that here as well. Also by including each of the links, typing into the "search fucntion," this post, should come up, and the related subjects, as to what should be known.

I created one on the requirements of mathematics sometime ago as well so this would be a good source link as well to the requirements needed to work within the string theory realm. I am still looking for it. You cna see now why this post is good for memory retention being somewhat lost as to where it is put under.

Is your motivation and pursuance of knowledge up to it?

HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICISTby Gerard 't Hooft

Theoretical Physics is like a sky scraper. It has solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don't think that pre-20th century physics is "irrelevant" since now we have so much more. In those days, the solid foundations were laid of the knowledge that we enjoy now. Don't try to construct your sky scraper without first reconstructing these foundations yourself. The first few floors of our skyscraper consist of advanced mathematical formalisms that turn the Classical Physics theories into beauties of their own. They are needed if you want to go higher than that. So, next come many of the other subjects listed below. Finally, if you are mad enough that you want to solve those tremendously perplexing problems of reconciling gravitational physics with the quantum world, you end up studying general relativity, superstring theory, M-theory, Calabi-Yau compactification and so on. That's presently the top of the sky scraper. There are other peaks such as Bose-Einstein condensation, fractional Hall effect, and more. Also good for Nobel Prizes, as the past years have shown. A warning is called for: even if you are extremely smart, you are still likely to get stuck somewhere. Surf the net yourself. Find more. Tell me about what you found. If this site has been of any help to someone while preparing for a University study, if this has motivated someone, helped someone along the way, and smoothened his or her path towards science, then I call this site successful. Please let me know. Here is the list.

Languages

Primary Mathematics

Classical Mechanics

Optics

Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics

Electronics

Electromagnetism

Quantum Mechanics

Atoms and Molecules

Solid State Physics

Nuclear Physics

Plasma Physics

Advanced Mathematics

Special Relativity

Advanced Quantum Mechanics

Phenomenology

General Relativity

Quantum Field Theory

Superstring Theory

Think Math

While I quickly jumped to the end of the third page of reference below, it summarizes a bit as to what culminations might be found with the math in all it's aspects describe as the language. The language(herein described as the math), brings it together nicely. Whole.

Guide to Math, by Superstringtheory.com
Noncommutative geometry (NCG for short)

Geometry was originally developed to describe physical space that we can see and measure. After modern mathematics was freed from Euclid's Fifth Axiom by Gauss and Bolyai, Riemann added to modern geometry the abstract notion of a manifold M with points that are labeled by local coordinates that are real numbers, with some metric tensor that determines an extremal length between two points on the manifold.

Much of the progress in 20th century physics was in applying this modern notion of geometry to spacetime, or to quantum gauge field theory.

In the quest to develop a notion of quantum geometry, as far back as 1947, people were trying to quantize spacetime so that the coordinates would not be ordinary real numbers, but somehow elevated to quantum operators obeying some nontrivial quantum commutation relations. Hence the term "noncommutative geometry," or NCG for short.

The current interest in NCG among physicists of the 21st century has been stimulated by work by French mathematician Alain Connes.

While the truer quest of seeing is in the world of mathematics used besides english, is the real language of commonality among scientists. It serves them well to understand how all these maths could add up too, what is required of those students of youth, and youth of mind of those advacing in age, that we see this described someplace.


Nature's patterns

So who is right? Well, there is much that is attractive in the Platonist point of view. It's tempting to see our everyday world as a pale shadow of a more perfect, ordered, mathematically exact one. For one thing, mathematical patterns permeate all areas of science. Moreover, they have a universal feel to them, rather as though God thumbed His way through some kind of mathematical wallpaper catalogue when He was trying to work out how to decorate His Universe. Not only that: the deity's pattern catalogue is remarkably versatile, with the same patterns being used in many different guises. For example, the ripples on the surface of sand dunes are pretty much identical to the wave patterns in liquid crystals. Raindrops and planets are both spherical. Rainbows and ripples on a pond are circular. Honeycomb patterns are used by bees to store honey (and to pigeonhole grubs for safekeeping), and they can also be found in the geographical distribution of territorial fish, the frozen magma of the Giant's Causeway, and rock piles created by convection currents in shallow lakes. Spirals can be seen in water running out of a bath and in the Andromeda Galaxy. Frothy bubbles occur in a washing-up bowl and the arrangement of galaxies.

Imagine calling someone with this background "flaky" because of a "strange idea" that might be borne in mind, while it is encompassed by all this knowledge of science, respectively? People who had been well intentioned, hiding all the information because they might have been taunted by those who were not respectful of the age of reason, with which they had applied them self.

I think every teacher, Mother, Father understands the best they have for their student, child respectively, and what they strive to encourage in regards to the independence and strength, to move forward with the motivation that is borne in every good seeker of truth?


ThinkQuest
Think Quest is all about students thinking and learning together. Students work in teams to create the best educational websites and compete for exciting prizes, including a trip to Think Quest Live, an educational extravaganza celebrating their achievements.

Sponsored by the Oracle Education Foundation, the competition offers a unique project-based learning experience to students and teachers around the world. Globally relevant subjects and diverse teams are encouraged.
The teams' websites are published for the world to see in the Think Quest Library. This rich online resource contains over 5,500 educational websites, created by students for students. Search the library and you'll be sure to find a site that intrigues you.

Information Links Below Created by Dan Corbett, Kate Stafford, and Patrick Wright for ThinkQuest.

The History of String Theory:

Introduction to String Theory:

Gravity and String Theory:

Supersymmetry:

The Dimensions of String Theory:

Dimensions, Wound Strings, Branes, and Calabi-Yau Spaces:

The Many Types of String Theory:

New Developments in String Theory:

Well so easily explained in the english language, Gerard's comments about explaining what we are doing now bears fruit? My inept capilities with this of courses draws recognition, let alone, the need to write those visionary qualities to algebraic equations. So Penrose has more words for us, besides his change of heart?:)

You think it easy to change the ingraininess of our methods that we should let them drop away easily? Find a new path/math with a heart? It is not without thinking that such decisions are made.

[ROGER PENROSE]

"One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER]...is the fact that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and because of the general way in which things at that time had to be explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him. Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps. This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."

A more direct link to quote above on page 12.

KK Tower

Like many people who devote their time to understanding the nature of the cosmo and the micro perspective of the world around us, these things have their own motivational packages which move to further rquired comprehensions. In that, one needs to further educateas to what they are talking about.

It's definitiely not easy, but I am trying, and devote a lot of time to this regardless of what schooling is required, it is not my intent to send people down the wrong paths, or, no paths at all, before I have investigated the terrain as best I can.

Mountains can give persepctive where sitting in the valleys circumspect what the greater can be?

KK Tower

What is it?



Kaluza-Klein theory(Wiki 4 Jan 2006)

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

Kaluza-Klein theory is a model which unifies classical gravity and electromagnetism. It was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza that if general relativity is extended to a five-dimensional spacetime, the equations can be separated out into ordinary four-dimensional gravitation plus an extra set, which is equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, plus an extra scalar field known as the "dilaton". Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up with a very small radius, i.e. that a particle moving a short distance along that axis would return to where it began. The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies.

Kaluza-Klein theory can be extended to cover the other fundamental forces - namely, the weak and strong nuclear forces - but a straightforward approach, if done using an odd dimensional manifold runs into difficulties involving chirality. The problem is that all neutrinos appear to be left-handed, meaning that they are spinning in the direction of the fingers of the left hand when they are moving in the direction of the thumb. All anti-neutrinos appear to be right-handed. Somehow particle reactions are asymmetric when it comes to spin and it is not straightforward to build this into a Kaluza-Klein theory since the extra dimensions of physical space are symmetric with respect to left-hand spinning and r-hand spinning particles.

So in order to get to the summation, views of hidden dimenisons had to be mathematically described for us, so a generalization here would suffice in the following diagram.



Now, not having the room to explain, and having linked previous information on extension of KK theory, I wondered about the following. If we understood well, the leading perspective that lead us through to the dynamical realizations, then the road Gauss and Reimann lead us to would help us to understand the visualization materializing by the calorimeter disciptions of each energy placement harmonically describing each particle's value? Even in a empty space, there seems to be something of a harmonical consideration?


If one understood well enough about the direction of discernation of early universe consideration and microstates, then such questions would have been of value in the ideas of topological considerations?

Collapse of the Blackhole

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

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

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

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


Kaluza-Klein theory

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

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

Strominger:

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

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

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

Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein

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

Where does the pure mathematics changes it's form?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas

Some Distant Bounding Surface

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

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

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



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

The Edge

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

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

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

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

Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of LAtimes.com

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

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

John Ma Pierre:

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

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

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

That sounded like Startrek for a minute there:)

The Black Hole Final State

Mathematics is not the rigid and rigidity-producing schema that the layman thinks it is; rather, in it we find ourselves at that meeting point of constraint and freedom that is the very essence of human nature.

- Hermann Weyl

It was a nice vacation and now being back, I see Lubos is clarifying some issues here for us to consider.

"Lubos Motl:

However, Hawking's semiclassical calculation leads to an exactly (piecewise) thermal final state. Such a mixed state in the far future violates unitarity - pure states cannot evolve into mixed states unitarily - and it destroys the initial information about the collapsed objects which is why we call it "information loss puzzle". A tension with quantum mechanics emerges.

The Gepner point demonstrates greater potential recognition of the brane world understandings and two dimensional views from a five dimenisonal developmentment for those who do not like such abstract adventures P.P. Cook helps to enlighten us on this subject.

So have I done justice to the developing perspective, that we are now ready to take what what demonstrated, and move it to a greater format for those who will lead us laymen through the world of the abstract mathematics? To help us enjoy what was mathematically unenduring for those not gifted to see the B field manifestaion, is a continuance of what we like to engage at higher dimensional perspectives. And really, it is all about imagery is it not?




Lee Smolin:

It was worry about the possibility that string theory would lead to the present situation, which Susskind has so ably described in his recent papers, that led me to invent the Cosmological Natural Selection [CNS] idea and to write my first book. My motive, then as now, is to prevent a split in the community of theoretical physicists in which different groups of smart people believe different things, with no recourse to come to consensus by rational argument from the evidence.

You must understand the state of thinking and dualistic nature that continues to force minds to engage the process, and this quest for wholeness, between two thoughts that are part and parcel of the same thing? Relativity and Quantum Nature. The larger circle is RElativity, and the smaller, the quantum nature. LQG and STring work from their respective positions.

So do we select the basis for this model, and find that LQG and Strings are formulated on principals embedded in association with the blackhole topic? This throws light back again on a topic that has been shared more then once by such trends in thinking as Lubos exemplfies for us, and again directs our thoughts towards Lenny Susskind and Lee Smolin, in contrast to each other.

I see people are teaming up appropriately, such as Cosmic Variance, and this of course has already been lead by Lubos and Peter's contrast to each other. Whether some like to speculate on co-joining for such comparsions on the validity of strings, versus no strings approach, as resolutions, had already been developed while we see this new means to develope, much as Brain Greene and others in ISCAP foundations principals.

So of course onward and forward, we push the topic and the expertise for the layperson like me, that we see and continue to find, developmental processes appropriately gathering for future thoughts shared? Again too, we see Quantum Diaries has indeed served it's purpose more then once in what John Ellis and other's have shared, have open the doorway to how we see such developmental attitudes expanding in contrast to the larger circle of possibilties.

See John's latest entree and for me, hitting big objects and particle collisions still open the mind for the natural cosmic interactive processes ongoing in nature around us.

Anyway back to the title of this post. I have some thinking here to do.

Gary T. Horowitz1 and Juan Maldacena,2

The purpose of this note is to provide a possible answer to this question. Rather than the radical modification of quantum mechanics required for pure states to evolve into mixed states, we adopt a more mild modification. We propose that at the black hole singularity one needs to impose a unique final state boundary condition. More precisely, we have a unique final wavefunction for the interior of the black hole. Modifications of quantum mechanics where one imposes final state boundary conditions were considered in [6,7,8,9]. Here we are putting a final state boundary condition on part of the system, the interior of the black hole. This final boundary condition makes sure that no information is “absorbed” by the singularity.

If indeed we started to think about the point on the brane then what kind of simplification can be drawn so that those less enclined to such abstract thinking could find a greater potential to that dimensionnal thinking?

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

Here such thoughts begin to form around the idealization of computer graphics imagery developed and leading in this idealization of this two dimensional screen. We see where the likes of Thomas Banchoff demonstrate where such new roads to the developing insight ot this imagery can be seen in Smolins views of the Bekenstein Bound, that we we now understand a greater potential exists in how we view the screen, and what is being described in the blackhole horizon?



Let me show this image again, for greater clarity of what I mean.

Expansitory Valuation of a Circle with Gravity?

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'.

Now I refer to this often, because of this connection between inner content and outer context. I know it deals with a consciousness and subjective valuation, but it seems very important when you think of what could happen between the compactification of the sun or earth and its size, once dealt to a blackhole?

In this setting of the spherical mass M, we define the value rS = 2M as the Schwarzschild radius of the mass. If the mass has a radius less than rS, then it is called a black hole. In that case, the surface r =rS is called the event horizon of the black hole.

Sometimes the determination of this value has to be seen in light of how we see the gravitational properties of the energy. Windings then, come of value in KK tower representations, and hence images of circles joining other circles can represented in a tree?

It's trunk and branches. Although this imagery is a little different, the base of the larger circle has pointed in the right direction, if we think of flat euclidean space, where no gravity potential can exist? Although we like to think there is never this abscence of harmonic oscillation, it would have to be assumed that it had always existed and can never really be zero?

Had I then complicated the ideal of this circle by recognizing this value from the ground up, had I lost sight of it's root system, and how well it is buried in the earth. How shall I explain this, but as a inverse function of growth? This is not possible. So we see where the seeding had the potential to rise from the earth in one form, and proceed to move into the air, as a phase from it's early unverse beginnings?

So where does this motivation then exist in the design?

A circle of radius r has a curvature of size 1/r. Therefore, small circles have large curvature and large circles have small curvature. The curvature of a line is 0. In general, an object with zero curvature is "flat."

See LIminocentric structure here for a deeper explanation. Greene's emphasis helps in other aspects as well. How can a six foot man exist in such a tiny circle?:)

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So in the one sense(or topo-sense) I see similarities between planes and cyliners and they are isometrically equivalent, and then ideas of topological design spoken of, in the idea of the coffee cup becoming a donut, and all of a sudden this kind of geometry had taken a turn for perspective that deals with other things then I am normally accustom too.

So on a csomological level we get this sense of curvature and here to further exploit this understanding the means to such equations supplied for this endeavor.



But taken to the tree level(potato plant):) and interactive features of windings how shall we interpret such energies, but by those same windings? That the seed of the plant held a greater design for growth, yet it is in the seed this plant and it's energy contained that it's futre is realized. I know this plant thingy is a bad analogy for how such circle and the arrow of time. Would a flower be better? How does anything loop back onto itself and replay this universe all over again?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

So when you read Lubos's entry here in Nasa's Collider you have to wonder? How on a physical level, the circle implied( our universe now after the first three minutes) could have ever recieved the connotation of it's valuation in a collision as large as we see in that situation? But you have to understand this connection between Gia and the "plate he hits", or the mirror moon measures and of course, there are simultaneous question about dimensional perspectve and compacted circles that raised the undertanding beyond current standards in our everyday world. Much like understanding strong curvature in a circle. How far can this be taken?

You would not think this post here would have ever had anything to do with Lubos simple statement about Nasa'a Collider, but it does?:) I guess it depends on which circle you belong too?

Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension.

How do we learn to deal with these abstract spaces, but to have considered the following:





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

After doing some reading I needed to support what was being expounded on here, so I found the following for consideration.

Einstein's special relativity was developed along Kant's line of thinking: things depend on the frame from which you make observations. However, there is one big difference. Instead of the absolute frame, Einstein introduced an extra dimension. Let us illustrate this using a CocaCola can. It appears like a circle if you look at it from the top, while it appears as a rectangle from the side. The real thing is a three-dimensional circular cylinder. While Kant was obsessed with the absoluteness of the real thing, Einstein was able to observe the importance of the extra dimension