So what about the Missing Energy?

"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.

It is unfortunate to have endured the constant flutter of disbelief(cry of pseudoscience) as to what is possible in a given space, that we can say that we do not really have all the facts to it's understanding, yet, to know that in this region, new physics will be produced.

It is also unfortunate to have observed a whole generation of string theorists who have undergone this constant rebuttal and berating over and over again while standing strong to the "educative values" undermined by those who saw no benefit too. You maintained the perseverance of a "thought domain that cover regions within the valleys" to be speaking about a time just after the big bang. How would the normal population of scientists know this?

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. mini review for search of eXTRA Dimentions

Now this question is an important one to me, because it is based on the amount of energy used in the collision process, and what is to come out of that collision process as tracks, adds up to so much energy. If these two numbers do not equal in parity then where has that extra energy gone?

This has always been a fundamental question to me of where I thought "new physics was to be found" and to have Tammaso Dorigo confirm this is quite a statement indeed of what is leading perspective in terms of what is to be measured and what is going to be measured in the proposed LHC experiments.

Missing Energy Kicks New Physics Models Off The Board

The signature of large missing energy and jets is arguably one of the most important avenues for the study of potential new physics signatures at today's hadron colliders.

The above concept marks an interesting turn of events: the years of the glorification of charged leptons as the single most important tools for the discovery of rare production processes appears behind us. The W and Z discovery in 1983 by UA1 at CERN, or the top quark discovery by CDF and DZERO in 1995 at Fermilab, would have been impossible without the precise and clean detection of electrons and muons. However, with time we have understood that missing energy may be a more powerful tool for new discoveries.

Missing energy arises when a violent collision between the projectiles -protons against antiprotons at the Tevatron collider, or protons against protons at the world's most powerful accelerator, the LHC- produces an asymmetric flow of energetic bodies out of the collision point in the plane orthogonal to the beams: a transverse imbalance. This is a clear signal that something is leaving the detector unseen. And it turns out that there is a host of new physics signals which can do precisely that.

A large amount of missing transverse energy may be the result of the decay of a leptoquarks into jets and neutrinos, when the latter leave undetected; or from the silent escape of a supersymmetric neutral particle -the neutralino- produced in the chain of decays following the production of squarks and gluinos; or it may even be due to the escape of particles in a fourth dimension of space -an alternative dubbed "large extra dimensions". see more in linked title above)

Now this is the thing that has troubled me most about scientists who are working and in the know, had not realized the necessity of pushing perspective back to a time to the first moments of the big bang(not just Steven Weinberg's first three minutes but of the microseconds just after the big bang) in order to understand what we are working on in terms of unification, and of where the products of this missing energy will spring forth from, as we move forward in the experiments to come.

The understanding then has always been in what is in that missing energy, to determine what new physics shall be, that such understanding was already there for the string theorist in their considerations. The contact point has already been defined for them, and reached two extremes. There is a reason why the missing energy escapes.

You had to know already where and what this "contact point meant" and what was to come out of it to know that dynamical qualities could exist in the big bang and where this big bang resides in the cosmos. That such energies can be reached there now. This required us to know that local events in the cosmos could contribute to the very nature of the cosmos and the state of the cosmos in the now. Like some cosmological constant "hidden and growing" in Omega.

To know that the dissipative results from micro collisions decaying fast too, did not mean we would be running short of the elements of this new physics either. It left it's remnants all around us to know that what can come out of such a collision point is not the story of the FLashForward scenario, but of things that travel through the earth to meet Gran Sasso and the likes. It was a whole plethora of particle disseminations that left missing energy around for us to explore in potential as some fictional substrate of the reality of nature that had not been seen before.

Order For Free

A purple haze shows dark matter flanking the "Bullet Cluster." Image Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/M.Markevitch et al. Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al. Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al

One would have to understand how this may become appealing in the sense, that if one were to believe in a God, that it might as Stuart Kauffman purports, that it to be nature's creative genius.



Self-organization

Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (though not always) display emergent properties.

If we are to think that such creation of universe are to be thought in this way, then what is the emergent principal inherent in such an expression that would allow for complexity to rule with it's matter states while considering the voids?

Self-organization vs. entropy

Statistical mechanics informs us that large scale phenomena can be viewed as a large system of small interacting particles, whose processes are assumed consistent with well established mechanical laws such as entropy, i.e., equilibrium thermodynamics. However, “… following the macroscopic point of view the same physical media can be thought of as continua whose properties of evolution are given by phenomenological laws between directly measurable quantities on our scale, such as, for example, the pressure, the temperature, or the concentrations of the different components of the media. The macroscopic perspective is of interest because of its greater simplicity of formalism and because it is often the only view practicable.” Against this background, Glansdorff and Ilya Prigogine introduced a deeper view at the microscopic level, where “… the principles of thermodynamics explicitly make apparent the concept of irreversibility and along with it the concept of dissipation and temporal orientation which were ignored by classical (or quantum) dynamics, where the time appears as a simple parameter and the trajectories are entirely reversible.”[3]

As a result, processes considered part of thermodynamically open systems, such as biological processes that are constantly receiving, transforming and dissipating chemical energy (and even the earth itself which is constantly receiving and dissipating solar energy), can and do exhibit properties of self organization far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

A LASER (acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”) can also be characterized as a self organized system to the extent that normal states of thermal equilibrium characterized by electromagnetic energy absorption are stimulated out of equilibrium in a reverse of the absorption process. “If the matter can be forced out of thermal equilibrium to a sufficient degree, so that the upper state has a higher population than the lower state (population inversion), then more stimulated emission than absorption occurs, leading to coherent growth (amplification or gain) of the electromagnetic wave at the transition frequency.”[4]

The understanding here on my part is to see that such examples are held relevant to how one may perceive "arrow of time." It is out of a "state of existence"(equilibrium or symmetry) that overrules this universe in expression. While holding this understanding about it's evolution, it will express the universes current state. It is also initiated from this being perceived as "being outside the universe." It is overseen.


WMAP cosmic microwave fluctuations over the full sky with 5-years of data. Colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations of the remnant glow from the infant universe: red regions are warmer and blue are cooler. Credit: WMAP Science Team

This holds a dimensional perspective in that one may see the earth, but at the same time, such a view held to it's gravitational anomalies tracked by Grace, would also hold to this being inclusive to a perception held in the overall scope of the universe and it's matter states. Alas, Lagrangian.

See:
WMAP Reveals Neutrinos, End of Dark Ages, First Second of Universe
Bullet Cluster

The New Garden of Eden

Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.

BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED

Stuart Alan Kauffman (28 September 1939) is an US American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for proposing the first models of Boolean networks.

Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics.

BEYOND REDUCTIONISM

See:Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Hardcover)

Well now, I have followed the work of those whose ultimate destination has been by seeking results from LHC as to the nature of some Higg's field that would bring together an organizational effort to the particle of nature. Now I should be much clearer here just as Stuart Kauffman should.

Higgs Fields

A Higgs field (named after a Scottish physicist Peter Higgs) is a field supposed to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass (and, because of Einstein's equivalence principle, gravitational mass). When the universe is extremely hot, a Higgs field (which is supposed to have a certain curve of potential energy; as regards the shape of this curve, there is no unique consensus, except for a certain general feature, among the physicists) exerts a wild influence; but we will neglect this here. Once the universe cools down enough, below a certain temerature, the Higgs field assumes a certain value (i.e. a value of the Higgs field) which corresponds to the lowest energy level (i.e. the potential energy is zero, but the value of the Higgs field is nonzero; this level may be called vacuum). And this energy level continues to prevail throughout the whole universe (uniform, nonzero Higgs field).

So here I am alone thinking about this self organization that goes on and I picked out Stuart Kauffman's book because I know that such a view is garnered by the likes of Lee Smolin, that it presents a challenge for me.

Been at it long enough to know there are opposing views and methods to determination that shall judge one's approach as too the "nature of reality." I am not going to go into the definition of this nature of reality but to assume that such a definition will become apparent in the selection of this title and the consequence of choosing Stuart's book. My reasons for expanding here under this title of the new Garden of Eden.

How it it that I could ever compare the very nature of the "Arch Model" to the insightful development of us as participants in the nature of reality that we could shape our destines and not think us less then a participant in this adventure called life.

At 9:15 AM, August 18, 2008, Blogger Plato said...

Experimentally, this became a basis for exploration which implanted experimental choice departures from euclidean space, which is flat.

This was a mathematical adventure of "pure thought" toward the process of interpreting this mathematics in the natural world.

How could one say the experimental process was first when such thought had to exist? It had to already exist in nature for us to test the theorization by definition.

So we emulate the process by experimentation. Oh sweet "spooky action at a distance?"

One should not think that such an avenue of research had not taken me down this road in regards to spooky, that I would not have adventured too, entanglement, or scattering amplitudes, that I would not of looked at Young's experiment and thought about the photon's travel. The combination or how calorimeters have been used to discern this interaction in the decay process.

Has Reductionism run to it's limit?

This is what Stuart Kauffman did not realize when thinking about reductionism or what Robert Laughlin spoke of toward the idea's of self organizational attributes of those things that gather, while we take them apart. It's not that they ever came to a definition of this limit, but tried to explain reductionism away, by the introduction of new ways, new approaches.


The Keystone

ON one side of this arch is an approach to Reductionism, and on the other, is emergence. The keystone, is the Equivalence principal.

The Effect of Cosmic Particle Collisions

How many with holding views of Climate Change have ever considered Earth's place in the cosmos and it's affects created from cosmic particle collisions from space?

So this post is to help illuminate the subject a bit with past information so you get the understanding and where they are todays in terms of science's research. Also I wanted to include my own observation I made that were readily evident as we watch a forest get disseminated by beetle infestation.

So that is part of it, that climate may produce pictures on Glacier withdrawals in relation to previous year's pictures. What other contributions should be considered then?


Finding a heavenly key to climate change

Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) in Geneva are looking at how radiation from outer space could be affecting our environment.

A new cutting edge experiment aims to discover how exactly cosmic rays and the Sun may influence the formation of low level clouds, and possibly climate change.

More than two centuries ago, the British Astronomer Royal William Herschel noted a correlation between sunspots an indicator of solar activity and the price of wheat in England. He suggested that when there were few sunspots, prices rose.

However, up until recently, there was little to back up this hypothesis. Today, inside an unassuming some would say decrepit:looking building at Cern, the Cloud (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) experiment might help explain how the Sun affects the climate.

See: Finding a heavenly key to climate change

Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage by Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996

Chaos and Complexity

Robert Betts Laughlin (born November 1, 1950) is a professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University who, together with Horst L. Störmer and Daniel C. Tsui, was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Physics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. In the period of 2004-2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.

Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline on the existence of black holes. See: Robert B. Laughlin

The Emergent Age, by Robert Laughlin

The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements - in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously.

Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important - fundamental or emergent - but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children's children, the higher organizational laws of the world.

Understanding the occurrence of natural things happening within earth's environments has a resulting affect to one's children's children here within the very make up of reality. How would know what is happening and the resulting affect moving toward societies if you did not dig deeper and understand that a reductionist effect is very evident.

Predictability was moved toward "Mercuries orbit" while the oscillatory nature of events resonant deeper into society. WE had learnt to propel satellites through space using minimum booster propellants by understanding these relations.

The Roots of Chaos Theory

The roots of chaos theory date back to about 1900, in the studies of Henri Poincaré on the problem of the motion of three objects in mutual gravitational attraction, the so-called three-body problem. Poincaré found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale, who was perhaps the first pure mathematician to study nonlinear dynamics, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

13:30 Lecture
Edward Norton Lorenz
Laureate in Basic Sciences
“How Good Can Weather Forecasting Become ? – The Star of a Theory”

So on the one hand if we are giving new perspective to the events of climate change and we look at what is happening not only with wheat fields in relation to sun spot activities, we need to understand it's effect, by the presence of natural events occurring as well.

Pine Beetle Infestation


Adult mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae

The Suzuki Foundation has published some of the most recent and most exhaustive research on mountain pine beetle epidemics in BC, but it appears the provincial government is only interested in receiving information from an industry perspective, he added.

“We actually were asked by the Premier’s office to attend tomorrow’s symposium, but when we received the agenda early this week we saw we weren’t on it. When I called to inquire, I was told we could observe from the audience but not present our report called Salvaging Solutions.

“I am absolutely flabbergasted and in fact insulted. In 25 years of attending such forums, as a Member of Parliament and for 10 years at the Suzuki Foundation, I have never been invited by a senior government official to travel 400 kilometres so that I can be window dressing. You have to wonder who on Earth is running Premier Campbell’s office and if they are really interested in gathering all of the best information on this issue.”

Photo by Lorraine Maclauchlan, Ministry of Forests, Southern Interior Forest Region
See:Mountain Pine Beetle Photos

Could Climate change play a role in this? If this is so, and is there some evidence that suggests, that our cold winters are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, this spread could go unabated?

The process of an event happening from space in terms of collision processes, and seeing this relation in terms of Cerenkov radiation, one gets a valuable sense of the process not only at the time of collision, but of what is disseminated, after the event itself happens.

Now while one may of focused on Cerenkov radiation, the effect of this process can be taken down not only to mean "cloud formation," but also, the environment suitable for new manifestations that are "conducive too" bug infestation.

"Lego Block" Galaxies in Early Universe

Witten:

One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist’s suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics.

n this image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, several objects are identified as the faintest, most compact galaxies ever observed in the distant universe. They are so far away that we see them as they looked less than one billion years after the Big Bang. Blazing with the brilliance of millions of stars, each of the newly discovered galaxies is a hundred to a thousand times smaller than our Milky Way Galaxy.

The bottom row of pictures shows several of these clumps (distance expressed in redshift value). Three of the galaxies appear to be slightly disrupted. Rather than being shaped like rounded blobs, they appear stretched into tadpole-like shapes. This is a sign that they may be interacting and merging with neighboring galaxies to form larger structures.

The detection required joint observations between Hubble and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Blue light seen by Hubble shows the presence of young stars. The absence of infrared light from Spitzer observations conclusively shows that these are truly young galaxies without an earlier generation of stars.

I always like to think that while we refrain from the actual Lego Building block that a child may use, the infancy in our views of the universe, are principles and terms that a condensed matter theorist might use.

Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.Robert Laughlin

See:Welcome to ICAM-I2CAM



Update:

Emergence

Light and Matter United

Murray Gellman: On Plectics

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

I was talking about some things in terms of the computerization that had gone to another level in perspective(gravitational entanglement). It was about how "technologies can change" while we had been held to a certain kind of thinking. While the limitations held us too, "not knowing what computerization may bring."

IN regards to the Landscape

It was important to understand why there would be such divergences in perspective and how these would be lined up? Some of course did not want to take the time, but it was important to me to understand the "philosophical position" taken.



One could just as well venture to the condense matter theorist and said, what building blocks shall we use? One should not think the "history of Platonism" without some "other influences" to consider. Least you assign it to a "another particular subject" in it's present incarnation? An Oscillatory String Universe?

So the evolution here is much more then the "circumspect of the biological function," but may possible include other things that have not been considered?

Physiologically, the "biological function" had some other relation? So abstract that I assigned the photon? So I said "feelings," while Einstein might assigned them to a "short or long time" considering his state of mind? :)

More thought of course here on the "fictional presentation" submitted previous. As a layman I have a problem in that regard. :)

Who would have ever thought that such "concepts that moved from my mind had some relation to the world at large in our emotive consequences?" That from such thinking, I would adopt fictional perspective to help me deal with what the advancements may be in the computerized world?

I already had to know of the development in terms of entanglement's issues, to move it one step further not only in my thinking, but in understanding that as you adopt model apprehensions, how shall these lead you to conclude that the physics in association, had some relevance to it.

The cosmologist may say that indeed the gravitational consequences and waves have as yet to be considered, but, if held to the photon in it's affect in such a gravitational field, then what would we want from such a graviton condensation?

It's colouring?

So of course it is appropriate that I show you the comment I made above, and then you judge for your self the thought I held in fiction, in relation to this article below as I am making that statement.

Lene Hau explains how she stops light in one place then retrieves and speeds it up in a completely separate place.
Staff photo Justin Ide/Harvard News Office

Atoms at room temperature move in a random, chaotic way. But when chilled in a vacuum to about 460 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, under certain conditions millions of atoms lock together and behave as a single mass. When a laser beam enters such a condensate, the light leaves an imprint on a portion of the atoms. That imprint moves like a wave through the cloud and exits at a speed of about 700 feet per hour. This wave of matter will keep going and enter another nearby ultracold condensate. That's how light moves darkly from one cloud to another in Hau's laboratory.

This invisible wave of matter keeps going unless it's stopped in the second cloud with another laser beam, after which it can be revived as light again.

Atoms in matter waves exist in slightly different energy levels and states than atoms in the clouds they move through. These energy states match the shape and phase of the original light pulse. To make a long story short, information in this form can be made absolutely tamper proof. Personal information would be perfectly safe.

The Perfect Sphere

Before I begin I had to mention the following two entries below that I wanted to do but was short on time.

This recording was produced by converting into audible sounds some of the radar echoes received by Huygens during the last few kilometres of its descent onto Titan. As the probe approaches the ground, both the pitch and intensity increase. Scientists will use intensity of the echoes to speculate about the nature of the surface.

I am following behind on the different posts that I wanted to write. One of them in relation to the descent of a "measure gatherer" (sounds primitive doesn't it?) and the sound values produced from that "descent on Titan." Can make it "sound ancient" while current research is of value.

Almost, as if one is a cave dweller blowing dried paint over their hands, could possibly be thinking of fire and rays cast while their own shadows made them think of a sun that can enter the cave, and chains that need to be broken from thinking so circumspect..:)



The second one I wanted to talk about was in relation to Themis and the Aurora Borealis. The labels will hopefully help with my previous research that I had done as well as other perspectives that allowed me to see this sun earth relationship. Quasar has currently dealing with that topic further in "Coronal Mass Ejection" as well and Backreaction entitled, "NASA launch of THEMIS Satellite."

Anyway on to the essence of this post and why it is troubling to me. Many would not know what goes on in my head as I am currently looking at the relationship of the Bose Nova to the jet productions that issue from such spiralled tendency. Accretion disc and the idea of such spiralling, to a pipe that follows to making anti-matter productions?

See Water in Zero Gravity, by Backreaction
How did this all arise? So you see such an idea of the sphere in a vacuum is a point from which to begin the search for things that were not there before, so we now know that such collisions can indeed produce "new" information?

The action taken, although seems related to what Arivero is saying, and of course I already have much on this in terms of Han Jenny, and the taking of the Chaldni plate to spherical relations. As an experiment with a "balloons and dyes using sound" similar to "sand on that same chaldni plate."

The Perfect Sphere and Sonoluminence.

Taleyarkhan.A second internal inquiry has found no evidence of misconduct.Credit: Purdue News Service

Purdue University officials today announced that a second and final internal inquiry has cleared bubble-fusion researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan of all allegations of research misconduct. "I feel vindicated and exonerated," Taleyarkhan says. "It's been a pressure cooker for about a year." But controversy surrounding Taleyarkhan's work isn't likely to die down any time soon.

Taleyarkhan is the chief proponent of the controversial notion of sonofusion, which suggests that sound energy can collapse bubbles in a way that yields more energy than was initially put in (ScienceNOW, 4 March 2002). Last year, an article in Nature reported that several of Taleyarkhan's colleagues at Purdue were upset by their encounters with him, suggesting that he allegedly obstructed their work and tried to stop them from publishing results that contradicted his own.

There has been some contention about the results, but this is far from what I wanted to show in terms of the geometrics involved. Patience as to the energy produced from this interaction of "sound on the surface transferred inside" to cause a spherical collapse.


Experimental apparatus used by the team at the University of Stuttgart. PMT = photomultiplier tube, PZT = piezoelectric transducer. Picture credit: Physical Review Letters

German researchers have measured the duration and shape of a sonoluminescence pulse for the first time. Sonoluminescence - the emission of light by bubbles of gas trapped in a liquid and excited by sound waves - is one of the most puzzling phenomena in physics. Although first discovered in 1934, physicists have yet to discover the underlying light emitting process.

Seeing the tensorial action on the bubble moving sound inside, I had wondered about how such a collapse could increase the temperatures involved to produce this "super higgs fluid." Lubos Motl never gave this much thought and I of course am impressionable when it comes to the science mind. I could not shake it.

Ultrasound can produce temperatures as high as those on the surface of the Sun and pressures as great as those at the bottom of the ocean. In some cases, it can also increase chemical reactivities by nearly a millionfold.

So we "assign fluids" as one might the "vacuum in space" to illustrate what we have as our way with these bubbles? These claims have not been fantastical other then what the science had been designed for, yet I am drawn to the schematics and geometrics.

So yes the ways in which the size of the blackhole could all of sudden collapse is critical here, to producing further results in what is required of the new physics? So looking for "such experimental processes" is always part of my resolve to understand the geometrics involved.

Please be patient while I am learning.


Axisymmetry is also broken in the fluid bells, which assume the form of polyhedra

See further information in regards to Broken Symmetry.

So the idea here that was troubling was the way in which the symmetry was broken in terms of the fluid flows demonstrated by the Broken Symmetry examples.

My perception is much different here in that the dynamical relation of "the super fluid", may have it's correlation in the Navier stokes equations. This is by "insinuation on my part." How preposterous such a thing to think that the conditions had to be "spelt out first" in order for us to understand the "new physics" beyond the standard model?

Navier-Stokes Equations

The Navier-Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, are a set of equations that describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases. These equations establish that changes in momentum in infinitesimal volumes of fluid are simply the product of changes in pressure and dissipative viscous forces (similar to friction) acting inside the fluid. These viscous forces originate in molecular interactions and dictate how viscous a fluid is. Thus, the Navier-Stokes equations are a dynamical statement of the balance of forces acting at any given region of the fluid.

Using the geometrical basis of my thought pattern established as a point in a circle, or a point with "no boundary", it seems it is very difficult to talk about the universe if one does not include the way in which such dynamicals can perpetuate the energy within this system.

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

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

Thus too, the understanding, that if you turn Einstein's equation E=mc² inside/out then what had you done? All "matter states" have then been assigned a energy value? Qui! Non?

Plato:

Layman scratching head while faceless expression of Boltzmann puzzlement takes hold?

How is one suppose to find "a equilibrium" in such a "low entropic state?"

If we were to experimentally challenging any thinking with "relativistic processes" how could they have ever emerged out of the BB? Maybe, it was a "highly symmetric event" for any asymmetry to show itself as "discrete measures" defined in relation to the "energy of probable outcomes?"

Where did such reductionism begin for us to ask about the "cross over?"

We needed high energy perspective to realize that we were still talking about the universe. Are there any other processes within the cosmos that can be taken down to such rejuvenated qualities to new universes being born that while the arrow of time is pointed one way, that the universe itself allowed such expression to continue in the expansion rate, and the speed up?

A Higg's fluid? Something had to be "happening now" that would dictate?

Forgive me here for my ignorance in face of those better equipped.

So you are looking for "this point" where things cross over? It is highly supersymmetric, yet, we know that such matter states have been detailed and defined as "discrete" asymmetric matter states.

I made a comment above that needed to be looked at again so I am placing it here while it suffers it's fate in another location. The basis of the argument is an ole one indeed that has long been exchanged by Smolin and Susskind.

Now it is again one of those things that I am trying to make sense of while one could go off in a philosophical direction. While the "facts of the matter" and experimental results dictate my thinking here.

It's the fault of that ole' Platonic thinking, and the Pythagorean basis of the universe in expression thingy. The universe is very dynamical geometrically while one debates the essence of inflation and disregards what allows such an expression to bring "other ideas" into the fold. How this "eternal idea" can bring other factors in terms of the speed up into consideration, while one ponders why such a thing is happening?

Neutrino Oscillations? Hmmmm.......

Oscillating flavors The three neutrino mass eigenstates are presumed to be different coherent superpositions of the three flavor eigenstates (ne, nm, and nt) associated with the three charged leptons: the electron, the muon, and the tau. There is good evidence that only two of the three mass eigenstates contribute significantly to ne. In that approximation, one can write

Just another fancy way of looking at CNO and the law of Octaves? :) While some thought space was empty, there were aspects of that space "which was alive" regardless of the asymmetrical realization of the discrete matters?

I'm trying here. You needed a background for it?

The triple alpha process is highly dependent on carbon-12 having a resonance with the same energy as helium-4 and beryllium-8 and before 1952 no such energy level was known. It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who used the fact that carbon-12 is so abundant in the universe (and that our existence depends upon it - the Anthropic Principle), as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance. Fred suggested the idea to nuclear physicist Willy Fowler, who conceded that it was possible that this energy level had been missed in previous work on carbon-12. After a brief undertaking by his research group, they discovered a resonance near to 7.65 Mev.

Now I am not pro or against anything, just trying to make sense of the disparity of such anthropic reasonings. So what processes in Cern reveals such an idea? Muons?

What's that saying? The devil is in the details :)

So we want to define our relationship with the world in some computerized method? It has always been something of a struggle to explain how one may see the world as they lose the focus of distinctive sight and hearing and soon realize that if they are all amalgamated, you might get this idea of the gravitationally inclined atomized in some computerized process? Feelings?:)

You finally learnt something about yourself?

A thought crossed my mind. A fictional story?

It’s interesting what calorimetric measure can do when you are looking at cosmological events. So, the photon becomes descriptive in itself?

Of course speaking of Glast here. Building alliances?


Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself?

You are working “to set” the course of events? So we have this description then of the universe and it’s “phase transitions.” It’s behind the “value of the photon in it’s description and escape velocity” and it’s value also “gravitationally linked?”

So technology now stops the photon in flight? We can then “colour our views with the gravitationally inclined?”:) A “philosophical take” on new computerized development with feeling?

The leading computer technologies here is not to diverge from what I moved too in terms of understanding the human condition. This is very important to me, and includes not only our biological functioning, but our resulting affect from the physiological one as well.

So while "you think" I hope to chart the colours spectrally induced oscillatory universe from the "photon stop over" and subsequent information held in that abeyance. Sure it's a story of fiction right now, but in time I would like to see this connection to reality.

It may only rest at this time in conceptual framework that was constructed from what was available in the physics and science at our disposal, while I had to move forward slowly.

It was important to understand why there would be such divergences in perspective and how these would be lined up? Some of course did not want to take the time, but it was important to me to understand the "philosophical position" taken.



One could just as well venture to the condense matter theorist and said, what building blocks shall we use? One should not think the "history of Platonism" without some "other influences" to consider. Least you assign it to a "another particular subject" in it's present incarnation? An Oscillatory String Universe?

So the evolution here is much more then the "circumspect of the biological function," but may possible include other things that have not been considered?

Physiologically, the "biological function" had some other relation? So abstract that I assigned the photon? So I said "feelings," while Einstein might assigned them to a "short or long time" considering his state of mind? :)

More thought of course here on the "fictional presentation" submitted previous. As a layman I have a problem in that regard. :)

So no one knows how to combine thermodynamics and general relativity? Hmmm....Boltzmann puzzle..hmmmmm...and I slowly drift off in thought.

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."

How does relativity ever arise out of such a situation? If "tunnelling was to occur" where would it occur, and where would "this equilibrium" find comparative Lagrangian relations in the universe? These perspectives are leading to what we see in the WMAP polarization patterns?

Are there not "comparative features" that allows for the low entropic states, within the existing universe? Allows us to return to those same entropic states in their respective regions, while "feeding" the universe?

You had to look for the conditions that would be similar would you not? And "supporting evidence" to explain the current universe speeding up. These conditions would have to support that contention.

I am holding off producing any new posts until I can bring the discussion to a suitable ending where Lee Smolin admits the ideas are not yet completed in terms of of our understanding of the landscape?

Clifford has a good humour post about real estate in the extra dimensions. Of course you had to follow other discourses here to understand how one may view what is "current in the thinking?"

This "balance in perspective" is not just one or the other but on how such perspective is formed around it. So on the one hand you have this Anthropic approach in string theory, and then you have the "philosophical differences on the other?"

Your trying to explain it and in so doing revealing the train of thought that was established. One does not disavow the road leading to the physics established of course, and no where is this intentional on differing perspectives

Lee Smolin: "Here is a metaphor due to Eric Weinstein that I would have put in the book had I heard it before. Let us take a different twist on the landscape of theories and consider the landscape of possible ideas about post standard model or quantum gravity physics that have been proposed. Height is proportional to the number of things the theory gets right. Since we don’t have a convincing case for the right theory yet, that is a high peak somewhere off in the distance. The existing approaches are hills of various heights that may or may not be connected, across some ridges and high valleys to the real peak. We assume the landscape is covered by fog so we can’t see where the real peak is, we can only feel around and detect slopes and local maxima.

Gravity Free Environment on Earth

It's taken some time from a layman perspective to try and "place this experiment" in a setting that helps orientate views. Well, at least in my case. :)

So here is a "guide below" that may seem trivial to some, yet, directed to the "microperspective" on this experiment, speak to cosmology as well. While it may seem easy from a "cosmological standpoint" gravities "effect" is of some importance in "condense matter views."

A "Top/down approach" pointing you toward LHC and the "anomaly of relativity" in the perfect fluid, seems like going "full circle?"

See:"Cosmic Variance"

Anyway to the essence of what has been instigated by the post of Seans, and what came about from the "Aerogel and Stardust" Post.


Microgravity Science Glove Box-The MSG will enable astronauts on board the ISS to perform a wide variety of materials, combustion, fluids and biotechnology experiments as well as investigations in the microgravity environment. It can also accommodate minor repairs and servicing of hardware requiring a controlled working environment. The facility offers users a wide range of innovative, utilization alternatives from manual control by astronauts via laptop computers to fully automated and remote control from Earth (telescience). A permanent data exchange link with ground stations is also ensured.The MSG will be integrated and used in the US Destiny Laboratory for a projected operational period of ten years.ESA is planning to use the facility for European experiments. The first time MSG will be used by a European astronaut to perform European experiments will be during a Soyuz taxi flight mission in October 2002. ESA's Belgian astronaut Frank De Winne will perform four different experiments in the MSG in the field of protein crystallization, zeolites crystallization, combustion and fluid science.
Frank De Winne works with the Microgravity Science Glovebox(MSG)Credits: ESA

Why is it we cannot create this environment, other then, the method described in terms of the drop tower, or, out in space? What ways do you know that such simulation can be developed to move the ideas of product development "done there in space." To make it feasible to create the condense matter states that are purer free from the effect of gravity on earth.

“On Earth, buoyancy continuously deforms and moves fluids in complex manners, making it difficult to study how materials that solidify from the melt form semiconductors and other products,” said Dr. Aleksandar Ostrogorsky, the SUBSA principal investigator who also teaches and conducts research at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. “In microgravity, the fluids are almost stagnant, resembling solids. The absence of motion makes it easier to observe and mathematically describe what is occurring when the crystals are melted, and how the materials solidify to form a new crystal.”

The idea occurred to me today to find a way in which to "create the environment" that is conducive to perfecting the "purity of alignment of substances" in a gravity free environment. I mentioned the aerogel in the previous article and how developing that product in space gives the product superior qualities, that one might not have here on earth.


Aircraft: A two-engine turbofan aircraft similar to the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9

A typical mission is 2 to 3 hours long and consists of 40 to 50 parabolas. These parabolas can be flown in succession or with short breaks between maneuvers to reconfigure test equipment. The Reduced Gravity Office provides scheduling, test coordination, and in-flight direction for the test programs.

So, we create the conditions for it. Whether it be the Space Shuttle, the Airplane or the Miniature Drop Tower.

NASA's "Weightless Wonder" KC-135a Reduced Gravity Laboratory

By comparing the results from fuel vaporization in a reduced-gravity environment with those under normal conditions, the students aim to gain a better understanding of how fuel droplets behave under different conditions to optimize the fuel injection process. The findings may be used in helping promote changes in engine design while improving efficiency and reducing emissions.

By understanding the process from "space to earth" we see where ingenuity of mind applies the differences of "time clocks" and such.


As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown above, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.

In a manner that "it's effects" in relation to gravity may be considered from a cosmological and micro-gravity perspective, in relation to "Inverse Square law( I use sound in the example, but click on the image provided)" and "Inverse Fourth Power Law."


This miniature drop tower is used by Microgravity man and others to demonstrate the effects of reduced gravity on physical and chemical phenomena that are normally masked by Earth's gravity.

So here we are "to the experiment" in a microperspective that is currently being explored.

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

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

Update:

Check out Backreaction's Water in Zero Gravity

Against Symmetry

The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid's Elements for example). It quickly acquired a further, more general, meaning: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole. From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.

The basic difference that I see is the way in which Lee Smolin adopts his views of what science is in relation too, "Two traditions in the search for fundamental Physics."

It is strange indeed to see perfection of Lee Smolin's comparison and having a look further down we understand the opening basis of his philosophical thoughts in regards to the title "against symmetry?"

Some reviews on the "Trouble With Physics," by Lee Smolin

Seed Magazine, August 2006

Time magazine August 21, 2006

Discover Magazine, September 2006 &

Scientific American, September 2006

Wired September 2006:15 :

The Economist, Sept 14, 2006

The New York Times Book review, Sep 17, 2006 by Tom Siegfried

The Boston Globe, Sept 17, 2006

USA Today, Sept 19, 2006

The New York Sun, by Michael Shermer, Sept 27, 2006

The New Yorker,  by Jim Holt Sept 25,2006

The LA Times, by K C Cole, Oct 8, 2006

Nature,

by George Ellis (Nature 44, 482, 5 Oct. 2006)

San Fransisco Chronicle , by Keay Davidson, Oct 13, 2006

Dallas Morning News, by FRED BORTZ, Oct 15, 2006

Toronto Star, by PETER CALAMAI, Oct 15, 2006

But before I begin in that direction I wanted people to understand something that is held in the mind of the "condense matter theorist." In terms of the building blocks of nature. This is important basis of understanding, that any building block could emergent from anything, we had to identify where this symmetry existed, before it manifested in the "matter states of reality."

Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

So it is important to understand what is emergent and what exists in the "theory of everything" if it did not consider the context of symmetry? AS a layman trying to get underneath the thinking process of any book development, it is important to me.

Symmetry considerations dominate modern fundamental physics, both in quantum theory and in relativity. Philosophers are now beginning to devote increasing attention to such issues as the significance of gauge symmetry, quantum particle identity in the light of permutation symmetry, how to make sense of parity violation, the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.

The idea here then is to find super strings place within context of the evolving universe, in terms of, "the microseconds" and not the "first three minutes" of Steven Weinberg.

So it is important to see the context with which this discussion is taking place, in terms of the high energy and from that state of existence to what entropically manifests into the universe now.

Confronting A Position Adopted By Lee Smolin


A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

This is only "one point of contention" that was being addressed at Clifford Johnson's Asymptotia.

Jacques Distler :

This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.

There is no doubt that the "timeliness of statements" can further define, support or not, problems that are being discussed. I don't mind being deleted on the point of the post above, because our good scientist's are getting into the heat of things. I am glad Arun stepped up to the plate.

Part of finally coming to some head on debate, was seeing how Peter Woit along with Lee Smolin were being challlenged for their views, while there had been this ground swell created against a model that was developed, like Loop quantum gravity was developed. One of the two traditions in search for the fundamental physics. Loop qunatum Gravity and String theory(must make sure there is the modification to M theory?) Shall this be included?


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

But as they are having this conversation, it is this openness that they have given of themselves that we learn of the intricacies of the basis of arguments, so the public is better informed as to what follows and what has to take place.


Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

So while this issue is much more complex then just the exchange there, I have not forgotten what it is all about. Or why one may move from a certain position after they have summarize the views they had accumulated with regards to the subject of String/M theory as a model that has out lived it's usefulness, in terms of not providing a experimental frame work around it.

"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