Universal Resurrection?

 It might sound metaphysical and ominous with the idea that such a rebirth could have become the idea of a reincarnation with all that it could entail in information that is existing for the next round of universal expressions. So no,  information is never lost :-) Shall we for ever tassel for the Chicken and Egg question or accept cosmologically that the universe is as if the chick and no further questions asked?:)

Maybe you are a good practicing Catholic for what is coming with Easter?? I would never judge any individual for what their religious belief is. But yes,  I do believe that such rebirths are part of the process for our improvement, how ever such views allow us to the see the world,  it is in these new ways.  It is,  as if even our own view is an example of the world in which we will see,  as to how we are at the center of our own expressions. Not intentionally being self centered, but administrating that such births take place even within us. But that's just my point of view.

So anyway onto the scientific explanation as I see it.

 
Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, from one of his Pittsburgh lecture slides in June, 2009. Photo by Bryan W. Roberts


Some things that came to mind are based on the idea of cyclic universe as supposed by Sir Roger Penrose. Questions outside the parameters of the cosmological universe allow for other points of view to emerge as one can surmise as not being blatantly unfair. That such a thing is as to consider "other universes" then, could become possible.  I would like to present then that the idea of the current universe is as if counted as speeding up, something within our current universe is contributing. Sean Carroll was looking for that.

To maintain such a balance as Omega (If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omega_m(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?),  then is to suggest that speeding up, has components that will help to incite a geometrical presence as to how such a universe is displayed? If so,  then at a "quantum level" such contributions are being classically displayed, while forcing views with regard toward  powers of ten as to suggest, there is a much wider view here then what you see in the everyday life.

That's just part of it. So it is with this video that you might find interesting. S James Gates demonstrates a measure of time in the sense that what was historically displayed by scientists of the last hundred years can emerge within as building a systemic picture and language development which is beautiful,  while being abstract worthy of considering. This is a good example of how ones view of the world can change from what we had as always looked at the world. You find such abstractness( math structure) but there is indeed a lesson in it.

Question: Are Blackholes Connected by Dark Matter?

Fermi observations of dwarf galaxies provide new insights on dark matter.

See Also:

Fermi Observations of Dwarf Galaxies Provide New Insights on Dark Matter

No one knows what dark matter is, but it constitutes 80 percent of the matter in our universe. By studying numerous dwarf galaxies -- satellite systems that orbit our own Milky Way galaxy -- NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has produced some of the strongest limits yet on the nature of the hypothetical particles suspected of making up dark matter. (Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)
› Download this video in broadcast quality formats from NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio

Density Parameter, Ω

  You must understand that the subject in context of question has been answered to some degree. The arguments for such an idea has its basis in science discussion already. What started this was the idea of cosmic strings that were first discussed to some degree back in 2005 and confirmation reading as as to the idea of such things in the early universe. What happens in galaxy clusters versus baryon versus non baryon relations. While this is fresh in my mind in terms of how relevant this is,  is the failing connotation of a mind who reads a lot and has a hard time of putting it together in a cohesive statement being ready for such an answer to the opening question on this blog entry.

Critical Density for the Expanding Universe

The Sun lies about 8.5 kpc from the galactic center of the Milky Way galaxy, and the visible spiral arms and globular clusters extend out to about 15 kpc. Radio frequency methods should detect gas and dust past this radius, but not much is found. It was expected that the orbital velocity of that matter which is detected should diminish, but it stays more or less constant well beyond any significant detectable mass concentrations. The orbital velocity data clearly indicates the presence of gravitational mass, and the term "dark matter" is used to describe it.

 We know as well that current questions about Dark Matter will be answered soon with AMS II? So I may find this article quickly redundant as to the question raised as some effort to what has been transposing in my own mind for some time. It is not a theory or something which I would claim as to providing some basis as to explaining the why of the omega of the universe,  but to further developed my undertaker at what lies at the edge of our current information.

Can a blackhole contain information and disperse it among the way in which our universe is forming and accelerating? These perceptions for me lie at what is happening in Di-Jet resonances as feasible explanations that are important toward the undertaking of what is happening in the universe.

At the same time again it is always in corrections that scientists will further explain that such an correlation may not be a good thing to consider here and is deceiving which is never my intent. As a student ever the examination of my thinking so as to provide a better understanding for sure.

In the above list I have excluded the case of quantum black holes (where the CMS limits are in the 4 to 5.3 TeV range and the ATLAS limits are in the 3.85-4.19 TeV range) because of the lack of a coincident set of assumptions in deriving the actual results, making it less meaningful to compare numbers. See: CMS Vs ATLAS On Dijet Resonances: Who Wins ?

You must know that the ideas that were forming in my head have directed my attention toward the reducible elemental considerations of particle physics and it's manifestation as  energy configurations. The essence of which is pointing me toward the latest research CMS updates and the questions of Di jet resonances that Tommaso Dorigo is talking about.

Tommaso Dorigo: A transverse cut-away view of the CMS detector is shown below, with the different signals that arise from the interaction of different particles.

I have come to rely on those scientist who are closest to what is leading in terms of experiment so as to understand not only the issue about the universe, but of what is microscopically happening in our immediate environs in terms of cosmic particle collisions.This is always an ongoing educational update for me so as to get the corrections needed in developing the ideas as they manifest, whether they are right or wrong, are leading as to the edge of where we have gone with that science.

Mega Mind?

Source:Numerical Relativity Code and Machine Timeline

In 2005 in "Lightening," as Strings, Strike?" I could see where certain issues were developing in terms of using computerized techniques in order establish a numerical correlations. Computations with how one might look and see the universe. Albeit, the brain in the end always came to my mind too.

 

DEUS consortium is developping the largest cosmological Dark Matter simulations to date with realistic Dark Energy component, involving billions of particules, with highest spatial resolution for the largest set of simulated Universe. Our challenge is to reproduce with unprecedented details the cosmic structure formation process and answer to the fundamental questions: what can we learn on Dark Energy from Large Scale Structure Formation (LSS) ? and How LSS formation process is affected by the presence of Dark Energy ? and then to understand the nature of the Dark Energy. www.deus-consortium.org, Contact: jean-michel.alimi@obspm.fr

Sort of like:  Mapping the Internet Brain and Consciousness

Zombie Central

Peter Woit:Hopefully Nature won’t take its place as Zombie-central…

December 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am if link deleted(yep! it sure has:) see here

Plato said,

"I have never deviated from the name I use, so you get the sense of who I am.

I do not see how "pushing back the physics and energies involved" would have made these issues abut cosmology inept or classed as fantasy in the making.

Tim May, some things helped toward our understanding whether they are in the kitchen "to help gain in conceptual understanding, what others are less then able to explain in their opinion biased.

Gabe:I really don’t have any knowledge of this, but: What exactly are they trying to say about liquid helium phases and extra dimensions?

Has anyone has sufficiently answered Coin or Gabe in their questions to have offered a conclusion?

Thanks Bee for challenging what would have otherwise been a chorus of the same ole, same ole."

Now what choice do I have, if I were to comment on anything that had to do with what "String theory is doing?" Now, I would have supposedly worn out the title of any string theory article as coming from Zombie central.

Now you know the title of this post and it's origination. The source of inspiration that allows me to comment and let stand, as to the substance of Peter Woit's post. The comments that come along as well.

Zombies

What more can I say, that by putting out front the reasons why this process is not just some fantasy woven for illusionists Peter seems to qualify. To all those who may speak toward the topic of string theory or not.

Will media just leave it "to the expert" to speak for them and not challenge what is the highest opinion Peter has for the topic of string theory? I guess if you are not willing to do the work, then like Scientist, it is better to not write an article and let it die a quick death.

The Articles in Question?

Since I too cannot gain access to the Nature article without paying, I can only go by the "press releases" that Peter has been kind enough to show us. So these are directed to the Nature article.



ow-temperature physicists at Lancaster University may have found a laboratory test of the ‘untestable’ string theory.

The test – which uses two distinct phases of liquid helium - is reported online this week in Nature Physics (published 23 December). Their paper will also be published as the cover article in the paper edition of Nature Physics in January.

String theory is a multidimensional theory based on vibrating strings, as opposed to the point particles described in the Standard Model.

Second Article

DOI: 10.1038/nphys815-Richard Haley, George Pickett and co-workers have taken a lateral step to address this barrier. They cool helium-3 isotope to a superfluid state — that is, a quantum fluid with non-classical properties such as completely frictionless flow. Adding a magnetic field creates a second superfluid phase, and the interface between these two phases behaves like a two-dimensional brane. Indeed, the collision of a brane–antibrane pair leaves traces of a stringy residue of defects: a tangle of vortices.

Third article

Can you model what happened after the Big Bang in your lab?

Helium-3 experiment replicates colliding-brane theory of cosmology.

Yes, according to one group of physicists. A team at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom has used liquid helium and a magnetic field to build a finger-sized representation of the early cosmos. Their findings, published today in Nature Physics 1, could help string theorists to refine their models.

Fourth Article

Again it is one that has to be purchased from nature. All I can do it "re-quote" the selections Peter has made, and direct you to the quotes in question. You have to take my word for what is represented and how it is used by Peter. Sorry. See source of quotes here

The subject of string cosmology is a hot one these days, with theoretical advances in understanding string dynamics riffing with recent precise observations of the cosmic microwave background

The quality of the details of the comparison between 3He and cosmology is not really the point. Like a tap-dancing snake, what is amazing is not that it is done well, but that it is done at all.

Contribution to Zombie Central?

I can only assume that the example given is none other then what Peter has classified?

Does one of these test tubes hold a baby Universe?

The test tube, the size of a little finger, has been cooled to a fraction of a degree above the lowest possible temperature, absolute zero, which is just over 273 degrees below the freezing point of water.

Inside the tube an isotope of helium (called helium three) forms a "superfluid", an ordered liquid where all the atoms are in the same state according to the theory that rules the subatomic domain, called quantum theory.

What is remarkable is that atoms in the liquid, at temperatures within a thousandth of a degree of absolute zero, form structures that, according to the team at Lancaster University, are similar those seen in the cosmos.

"In effect, we have made a universe in a test tube," says Richard Haley, who did the work with Prof George Pickett and other members of the "Ultra-low Temperature Group."

Now, just hold your horses here while we consider not only the context of this article by Richard Highfield, but of the very questions I myself have asked that we might consider the context of the Telegraph article other then contributing to Zombie Central.

Warning to Viewers

It is true that there has been a lot of debate about how information currently being dealt within in science articles are giving concern to people at the forefront of science. So in this effort I see what Peter is saying. Scientists are indeed asking for this responsibility, and not just of the media themself , but of the individual in their "pursuit of the truth" of what is being portrayed out there in the science media's global vision.

I do not sanction "the classifications" that have been drummed up by Peter Woit, from intelligent design theorists, to Zombies.

The View of the Cosmos?

Now why is it that we would look to the cosmos and ask ourselves about the views that would happen in the context of universal display, as having some relevances to the microsomal world that surrounds us.

Over and over again, we are directed to applications of what happens in that cosmos as experimental processes which reveal the origins of the universe in that microcosm view? So they use a test tube. The origins of life has it's basis in that tube on a simplistic level, whether you'd like to think so or not.

Would it have been better to use the "image of the tube" and an emergent image of the colliders over top of it, as a better view of the microscopic view of the world we live in?

Powers of Ten

Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.

Many of us understand the powers of ten, Qui?

See: Perspectives on the Power of Ten

So to get from the cosmos pallet of investigation, to one of drawing analogical
views of the vortices, is not so uncommon that we can see such vortices out there in the cosmos and not draw some conclusion to the "relativistic interpretation" that may arise in some super fluid?

I can understand Tim May's "bubble in the test analogy in the kitchen," but I would have drawn a better parallel to sonofusion(you can find examples of this on this site) as an example about reduction to the "principals of the early universe." While I see such collapse dynamically related to "gravitational collapse" this is my view with regards to the increase in temperature values that may have been attributed to the ideas about the energy increase in blackhole development and motivation for providing the routes for cosmological expansion rates. An analogy, yes.

The escape pathway for that "extra energy" to loose itself, while the computations of the values of particle creations are left for inspection. Where did that extra energy go? Is it such a "bad question" to have when looking at the microscopic view of particle creation in the birth of our cosmos? To have the universe being in such a cosmological state, that the variance of speed of expansion shall vary? Explained, with such a idea?

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson and Gregory L. Comer

In writing this review, we have tried to discuss the different building blocks that are needed if one wants to construct a relativistic theory for fluids. Although there are numerous alternatives, we opted to base our discussion of the fluid equations of motion on the variational approach pioneered by Taub [108] and in recent years developed considerably by Carter [17, 19, 21]. This is an appealing strategy because it leads to a natural formulation for multi-fluid problems. Having developed the variational framework, we discussed applications. Here we had to decide what to include and what to leave out. Our decisions were not based on any particular logic, we simply included topics that were either familiar to us, or interested us at the time. That may seem a little peculiar, but one should keep in mind that this is a “living” review. Our intention is to add further applications when the article is updated. On the formal side, we could consider how one accounts for elastic media and magnetic fields, as well as technical issues concerning relativistic vortices (and cosmic strings). On the application side, we may discuss many issues for astrophysical fluid flows (like supernova core collapse, jets, gamma-ray bursts, and cosmology).

In updating this review we will obviously also correct the mistakes that are sure to be found by helpful colleagues. We look forward to receiving any comments on this review. After all, fluids describe physics at many different scales and we clearly have a lot of physics to learn. The only thing that is certain is that we will enjoy the learning process!

So you understand that the views of the string theorist is not limited to the microcosmic view, but endorses the cosmological one as well.:) See the Lagrangian views supplied on this site to understand how gravity has been incorporated in the cosmological view.

Collider Detector at Fermilab and Slac

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

If for one moment you thought strings had some relation to the very nature as "building blocks of this universe," at what "energies" would we have said they had made their appearance? Microseconds perhaps after the universe came into expression?

The CDF Detector. Image from Fermilab

Three trillion times per second--that's how fast quarks in the B sub s (B_s) particle "oscillate," or switch between their matter and antimatter states, according to scientists from the Collider Detector at Fermilab collaboration. The CDF physicists measured this rapid oscillation with the help of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, Fermilab’s Tevatron, unprecedented computing power made available through the Open Science Grid and the LHC Computing Grid, and a healthy dose of ingenuity.

"B_s oscillation is a very subtle and rapid effect," says Jacobo Konigsberg from the University of Florida, co-spokesperson for the CDF collaboration. "It's astonishing that we can measure it at all."

When you look at these events, the cascading effect of this interaction with the earth's upper atmosphere, why did not one think of the constituent properties that would be exhibited at the beginning of that same universe?

Multi-Jet Hadronic Events


Event 12637_6353_600_z_3jet

In some hadronic events, the initial high-energy quark and or antiquark pair may radiate a high-energy gluon before the production of additional quarks and antiquarks in the strong force field is completed. These gluons also show up in the event picture, because they provide a different pattern. The momentum of each high-energy gluon appears as an additional jet of hadrons. This process results in three, four, or even five jet events. Sometimes though, as these pictures show, it is very clear to see.

I do not understand why people did not understand this relation to what was happening within the cosmos, would not be produced in our colliders? That what was happening at the beginning of our universe had some relation to what was being produced in those colliders?

Cosmic Rays


Cosmic rays are caused by protons from outer space. When a proton (shown in yellow) hits the air in the earth's upper atmosphere it produces many particles. Most of these decay or are absorbed in the atmosphere. One type of particle, called muons (shown in red), lives long enough that some reach the earth's surface.

SLAC's Cosmic Ray Detector: The Cosmic Ray Detector consists of three pairs of scintillator panels for muon detection. Sets A, B, and C (see below) are oriented with the flat surface of the panels horizontally, at 45°, and vertically, respectively. In each pair, the panels measure 4.875 inches (12.4 cm) wide by 8 inches (20.3 cm) long, and the distance between them is 18.5 inches (47.0 cm). The panels are shielded from light with aluminum foil, black plastic sheets, and black tape. When muons penetrate through these panels, chemicals within will scintillate (emit flashes of light).

Three Ring Circus: Dark Energy

"Observations always involve theory."Edwin Hubble

Hopefully some day, I will be accepted as a student of this universe, and it's intrigue?



Sometimes it is necessary to understand that having come to different consclusion about the geometry of this universe that underneath the complexity of these equations a schematic drawing of reality is unfolding? I think this is where Einstein's success came from? So assume from this point a supersymmetrical view of the universe?

You can check out Wayne Hu's site for further info on computer simulation below


A simulation of large-scale structure
formation

As the Universe expands, galaxies become more and more distant from each other. For an observer, such as ourselves, it appears that all other galaxies fly away from us. The further the galaxy, the faster it appears to recede. This recession affects the light emitted by the distant galaxies, stretching the wavelengths of emitted photons due to the Doppler redshift effect. The distance between galaxies is proportionalto the measure of this effect 1+z, where z is what astronomers call redshift. The redshift can be measured for each object if its spectrum is measured.

All three geometrical positions demonstrated below each held the cosmologists to views of our universe. But we now know that Einstein may have been right. What allows us to think this way?

Sorry about the quality of artistic rendition. But you get the jest right?

Why is the universe speeding up, and what does this mean geometrically? There has to be some physics going on that would explain this? What may this be?

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

If we look back to the measures of supernova Ia measure and find that in that time measure there were differences in the inflationary aspect of that universe, then, the universe today would have allowed us to consider the universe quite capable of changing it's speed of inflation.

While indeed we had held to inverse square law in our assumptions, what shall we do now? As you know, spending a couple of years on my own, I am learning, and yes, it shows sometimes. The "idea back then" presented by Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. "This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems," is what was understood in any theoretical development by scientists then and today?

Inverse Fourth Power Law


Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University

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.

Also, I wouldn't one to think that the experimental process had been defunct what we are doing with Cosmic ray collision processes, to not include it with what the LHC is doing as well. Not only have we created the conditions for it in LHC we recognize as a natural process.

While we know of the components of our universe distributed we understand that their is a part of this whole thing that is casing some questions about what we had thought held to the big bomb's inverse square law rules.

What is causing the Speed increase?

While indeed the layman here speculates, it made more sense if we can now explain what is going on. It has been a long journey in terms of comprehension development but I must say it has been rewarding.



So while indeed I show cosmos particle showers here, it is to point out something that helps to fuel the idea behind the speeding up and slowing down of the universe? Cross over production demonstrate in LHC serves also to speak to the fluctuations in "differing speeds of inflation" in our cosmos?

The "crossover" is a point in the collision process of LHC. So by creating these conditions in the LHC, we have effectively recognized where the "new physics" will emerged from. Also, it presents the opportunity for the "first time here" to address what the effects of the LHC will do for us in terms of what has been presented in terms of the dark energy announced below.



So as close as we came to discerning the mass of the neutrino, what have we now come to know? That their could be "a form" of dark matter? The "point here" was to look for the crossover that was taking place and presenting the opportunities for "new physics" to emerge.

The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos.

I have some "thought bubbles" percolating to the surface awareness of my mind(a philosopher?), so we will have to see what strange brew materializes. This is a post in developmental mode.

Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that dark energy is not a new constituent of space, but rather has been present for most of the universe's history. Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate. Investigators used Hubble to find that dark energy was already boosting the expansion rate of the universe as long as nine billion years ago. This picture of dark energy is consistent with Albert Einstein's prediction of nearly a century ago that a repulsive form of gravity emanates from empty space. Data from Hubble provides supporting evidence to help astrophysicists to understand the nature of dark energy. This will allow them to begin ruling out some competing explanations that predict that the strength of dark energy changes over time.

The title itself of this blog post is not to make fun of what is happening in cosmology right now with the new announcement today. It is about "forcing the mind" to look at "Friedman's equation" in each of the rings. Now the thought is the "whole show" is the Einstein cosmsological constant circus and entertainment, that is happening simultaneously.

Yet it is the idea of the "oscillating nature" behind the geometrical principals that is what I am speculating about.

But thanks to good professor below there is an more in depth explanation shared.



Maybe with the development of the vision, "beyond the spacetime" we had come to know and love, we have now come to a unique point in time? That we understand the greater "depth of the universe" is now open for questions about it's inherent nature?

Graviton in a Can?

After you consume "graviton in a can," you might never be the same? Brane thinking may then dominate your every view of the world. Then, it will all make sense?

Imagine while we peer deeper into the subject of the "perfect fluid/soup" we find that certain aspects of the reductionist work done, has indeed lead us to speculate on how the "new physics" formed through the research and understanding currently being worked in the LHC?

Is there some architectural design to the "Degree's of Freedom?" Why anything more then the spacetime we have come to recognize, which placed new parameters on our thinking? Moved it from the recogition of Maxwellian and Gaussian coordinates to Riemann geometries in the theory of General Relativity, to become known, as the Theory of gravity. Why "anything" more then that?


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!

I mean how are such abstract notions in the mathematics supposed to make sense, if we can not see the logic of these formulations working in some kind of reality frame of reference?


by Jacob D. Bekenstein

TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.

So we have these diagrams and thought processes developed from individuals like Jacob D. Bekenstein to help us visualize what is taking place. Gives us key indicators of the valuation needed, in order to determine what maths are going to be used? In this case the subject of Conformal Filed Theory makes itself known, for the thought process to hone in on what is going to be spoken too?

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondence between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinguish which description is more fundamental.Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

So we are given the label in which to speak about the holographical ntions of what is being talked about in the case of the blackhole's horizon.


Campbell's Soup Can by Andy Warhol Exhibited in New York (USA), Leo Castelli Gallery

While it is difficult of such images to be found displayed in the bloggery here to show what Dr. Gary Horowitz is saying you get the jest when you go right to the image of the tomato soup can.

Spacetime in String Theory-Dr. Gary Horowitz, UCSB-Apr 20, 2005

This year marks the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's "miraculous year", 1905, when he formulated special relativity, and explained the origin of the black body spectrum and Brownian motion. In honor of this occasion, I will describe the modern view of spacetime. After reviewing the properties of spacetime in general relativity, I will provide an overview of the nature of spacetime emerging from string theory. This is radically different from relativity. At a perturbative level, the spacetime metric appears as ``coupling constants" in a two-dimensional quantum field theory. Nonperturbatively (with certain boundary conditions), spacetime is not fundamental but must be reconstructed from a holographic, dual theory. I will conclude with some recent ideas about the big bang arising from string theory.

Imagine containing everything we know in this can. Yet,we find that the "soup image" has somehow been translated to other factors and values that seem beyond what we know is real. Is real within the confines and boundaries, and is not evidence of the "infinities" that arise from such non containment?

So, what of the "dilation field" that accumulates, as we speak to what the photon is in the measure of Glast. High energy photon determinations that may also be the valuation of the graviton in expression, as the photon travels through these fields?

Such unification is important once we move into the bulk perspective and what we see of the 2d image of the brane, as a value, and discernation of the label of the soup can?


The ALICE TPC in its clean room, where it is undergoing commissioning of all its sectors.

One of the first cosmic-ray events recorded and reconstructed in two sectors of the TPC.

The tests use the ALICE cosmic muon trigger detector ACORDE, as well as a specially designed UV laser system, to produce tracks in the detector. Preliminary analysis of the cosmic-ray events and the laser-induced tracks indicate that the drift velocity and diffusion of electrons liberated by traversing charged particles, as well as the spatial resolution, are very close to the design values.

So here we are then, having graduated in perspective about what is real, as one may ask the sociological aspect of this whole adventure?



If such missing energy is, "not accounted for" then what happens to the graviton as it is produced and causes energy to travel with them?

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!

Part of Facing the Trouble With Physics

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics. Richard Feynman

Faced with the task of showing the connection between string theory and reductionistic consideration is quite a task, as I am sure in most eyes? To me it just seems that everytime we adjust our view and include new views, what shall we say of "gamma ray detection" when we look at high energy photons describing the early universe for us?



Hey, it makes my heart jump too.

Here is a case, with which I like to make my point. Having someone corrected makes it that much better now to make comparisons like I do. The simple point of "order" enlightened greatly the situation for us, in what I am exemplifying here. We wil not forget the paper offered up after, in that comment thread either. Thanks

A realization 1; 2; 3 that QGP at RHIC is not a weakly coupled gas but rather a strongly coupled liquid has lead to a paradigm shift in the field. It was extensively debated at the “discovery” BNL workshop in 2004 4 (at which the abbreviation sQGP was established) and multiple other meetings since.

In the intervening three years we had to learn a lot, some new some from other ranches of physics which happened to have some experience with strongly coupled systems. Those range from quantum gases to classical plasmas to string theory. In short, there seem to be not one but actually two difficult issues we are facing. One is to understand why QGP at T ∼ 2Tc is strongly coupled, and what exactly it means.

In Extracting Beauty From Chaos I am recognizing this depth of perception enhancement that is supplied by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance. Would you rather look at "Seans moon" in gamma?

CERN planned a global-warming experiment in 1998?

Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.

What shall I say to you as SNO investigated the "cerenkov effect" from the cosmos ray particle collisions? Shall I speak about the "weather predictions" that arise. This is a interference and a "weak measure" of what is fast becoming the thought in my mind of the diversity of global painting, to include, that blue light as each of the detectors "pick" the overall pattern of high energy exchanges in the detectors as inherent image understanding. It has been transcribed from the "sun's energy value" and applied to high energy considerations?

"Atmospheric" neutrinos, produced by interactions of cosmic ray particles with the earth's atmosphere, might be useful for studying the properties of neutrinos. But if you're hunting sources of neutrinos in the universe, atmospheric neutrinos are nothing but noise.

Now, I may reference Glast indications here in the experimental validation of those high energy photons, gamma ray indication is a wonderful jesture to extending the depth of perception, as I have tried to do here by helping Q see the relevance of the quantum dynamical perception. From ,the beginning of this universe.

So we see where the " Window of the universe" has helped me to see in ways that we were not accustomed. It is "the physics" that has taken us there.

So, while the picture of JoAnnes is highlighted, the lesser of the views is the "gamma ray detection" while I have pointed to the neutrino here in experimentation.

Should we loose sight of what the KK tower exemplifies?



I am sorry about the "dead link picture to topology" but blogger does not go back to 2004 so that I can adjust it.

Now why would I then reference "quantum gravity" behind the picture of the KK tower, and the information about topology? Possibly, that we have for the first time thought here that the Navier-Stokes equations could have been applied at a fundamental level while thinking of what the QGP has given us, as we witness "cerenkov radiation" from a long line of reductionistic reasoning? Is this worth a million from the Clay Instituted by generalization alone?:)

If not, at least, if held in line with lagrangian views of gravitonic perceptions in the bulk as we phyically see the relation between the sun and earth?

It is thus my mind has been held to the idea of the "conical flows[Volcanos, to jet engines in analogy of the laval nozzle]" as the energy is released for the dissemmination from the collider of nature enhanced, to all that follows from the cosmic particle interactions. Right to the neutrinos resulting from the fluidity of the QGP pertaining to viscosity?

What was not present before? Muon detectors hmmmm..... and the road from muon neutrinos too?? What am I missing here?

The muons are stopped by the rock. Impervious to all such obstacles, the muon neutrinos will leave the CERN tunnels and streak through the rock on their 732 kilometre journey to Italy.

Hold that picture of JoAnnes, while you think of Glast. In the determinates of the gamma ray detection, we have therefor faced the "Trouble with Physics?":)

What is Cerenkov Radiation?

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

Many do not recognize the process that unfolds in the developing perspectives about theoretics? Does one think it is divorced from reality that you could say, "hey this idea of course has no attachment to what exists and what we know exists and asks that you move forward with it."

Often you hear the "dreaded reference" to the AEther, and who can help but see where such revisions in thinking changed the society of scientists to put them on a new course?

Do you think the title was changed from the aether to the valuation of strings and the boson production evident in the bulk just to replay itself in the developing scenarios of our historical past? The past included a revision to the way we view that concept? That is it's effect in today's world. "The correction?"

As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

But we have to go back in history here to see where such influences have taken hold of the mind, from what was instituted in the neutrino search, to have the ideas swirl around and form new prospect researches, based on the ideas of women/men?



The story will follow here shortly. I would like to thank Paul on his early recognition of the bubble chamber events as they encourage research in 1998 to ponder the experiments in Cern to say?

Add your story so that this can be completed. I will add mine for a wonderful view of what research and developement does in regards to the way of "modelling to experiment."

Well since starting this blog entry there has only been two other examples that may be added to this entry as of today, yet, one by Commentor NC at Cosmic Variance while the other materialized over at Backreaction on the post done by Bee and Stefan.

A Look Back

Have a look at this image below first.



Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage-a missing link in Solar-climate relationshipsby Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996

So this is wonderful that in one way, where my mind rebukes the lashing out of Peter Woit by evidence of ICECUBe and my ir/relevant comments, could have found sustenance in how things are to be explained further? More physics ...wonderful.

But I want to go back historically to view, so that one sees what was a picture "written by Paul" and his trip to Canada, held an observation that sends us back in time experimentally to look at, to find out, what Cern was doing in 1998. Thanks Paul

You ready?

CERN plans global-warming experiment(1998)

A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in global temperatures.

Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.

So what is this science based on?

The production of a high-intensity neutrino beam at CERN requires a complex facility. A proton beam produced and accelerated by the CERN accelerators is directed onto a graphite target to give birth to other particles called pions and kaons. These particles are then fed into a system comprising two magnetic horns which focus them into a parallel beam that is directed towards Gran Sasso. Next, in a 1000 metre-long tunnel, the pions and kaons decay into muons and muon neutrinos. At the end of this decay tunnel, an 18 metre thick block of graphite and metal absorbs the protons, pions and kaons that did not decay. The muons are stopped by the rock. Impervious to all such obstacles, the muon neutrinos will leave the CERN tunnels and streak through the rock on their 732 kilometre journey to Italy.

Now what does this have to do with Cerenkov radiation? Okay. I'm scratching my head now.

“CERN has a tradition of neutrino physics stretching back to the early 1960s,” said Dr Aymar, “this new project builds on that tradition, and is set to open a new and exciting phase in our understanding of these elusive particles.”

From the 1960's. Wow!

Imagine that someone might say to you that this is a "Rube Goldberg Machine" analogy as to what was the road leading to the understanding and the inclusiveness of microstate blackhole creation from particle collisions, as part of the continued story of the neutrino in action?

See:

So What Did I mean By Olympics?

Pulsars and Cerenkov Radiation

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCube

Are Strangelets Natural?

Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

It is important that you look at the date of this article following, and what has subsequently arisen from "then to now." The title of this post asked a legitimate question and it was answered in response to the disaster scenario's presented to the LHC "recenty?" Check the date on it? Not so recent?

Discovering this raised the conclusiveness about what was comparative to the cosmic ray collisions. This lead us to believe, the microscopic blackhole creation was safe. Becuase it happened all the time in the space above us. Just as we may see the aurora borealis in our observation in the interaction with the sun, so too, in cosmic particle collisions in ways beyond the standard model.

So looking back?

SCIENTISTS ARE OFTEN ACCUSED of trying to play God. But obviously they can't really mimic the feats of the putative Creator of the Universe, and make a universe in the laboratory. Or can they? Before you snort in disbelief, you should know that some serious cosmologists have considered the idea. Indeed, one of them has already had a shot at creating a universe--albeit inside a computer. The idea dates back to the late 1970s, when Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University, and Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology separately came up with the concept of "inflation". According to this idea, an incredibly short, violent burst of expansion occurred around 10-32 seconds after the birth of the Universe. Propelled by concentrated vacuum energy, inflation boosted the size of the Universe from one billionth the width of a proton to the size of a grapefruit. That's what the theorists claim, but showing that inflation really did take place like this is hard... unless, of course, someone can recreate the right conditions in the lab and watch what happens. Linde and his colleagues have already done a dry run on a computer. "Setting up the simulations was hard work, and only on the seventh day did we finish the first series," he reported in Scientific American in 1994, adding in Strangelovian terms: "We looked at the shining screen, and we were happy--we saw that the universe was good!" This isn't enough for Linde: he wants to do it for real. But theory suggests that matter has to be squeezed to densities similar to those in the primordial Universe before such fields appear. No-one has the faintest clue how to create such densities, yet. Linde is sanguine about the dangers involved, if it ever becomes possible. "You can think of our Universe as being like a smooth surface, with one part of it inflating like a balloon. The new universe will be connected to ours by just a tiny passage--what we call a wormhole--the size of a subatomic particle." Quite how we'd know we'd succeeded isn't obvious, but at least there seems little danger of someone tumbling into the new universe by mistake, or anything nasty getting out.

THis one post includes "lots of link"s from the accumulation of my thinkng as a layman. I had gathered these as they unfolded, to help me understand what was introduced to me some time ago by Paul on the question in regards to the "Disaster Scenario at LHC."

Now in regards to "new physics" one needed to see what would come out of such collisions that would be produced, so one had to indeed follow that thinking which I did. How far from the truth of it was what was generated in the public eye distant from what was published by the reputable scientists?

Well you would have to judge for yourself, and "my excuse," well it has been provided for me, so one can say as a layman I am really distant from the current thinking.

So yes before Cosmic Variance and the disaster scenario, it was in our conversations that "Mooreglade of Superstrintheory.com forum" introduced the article of "A Blackhole Ate My Planet" which lead too "Fate of our Planet"

So you see, between then and now, I was able to construct accordingly as I was exposed to the information in regards to "both ways" to which Lubos implies in that statement in comment link?

Okay. Now the stage has been set.

What has been Lubos been saying?

That the connection in "B's question" again sets the stage for further thoughts?

That's just the way of it and who better then student who will make way for further insights, whether it be "Lubos or B?"

In the past my mistake was made to "mirror" Lubos with Peter Woit, because I needed to see what the others may offer in regards to the positions they adopted. Or, another example would have been Smolin and Susskind, who bounced off each other. Or, Gell-mann or Feynman. Or maybe even Plato and Aristotle shhown in the picturte at the top of this Blog?

IN the above case with Peter Woit, I did not learn much? The counter arguments as to why strings were failing in the road to experimental validation(sure we were preoccupied with it's validity then), and how this message was being put out there.

Be sure that more senior people agree with me that it is trivial to falsify that conjecture, including Susskind, Vilenkin, Banks, and others who have looked into it.

So where are we today in regard to strings? Lubo's reference to Banks, Vilenkin, and Susskind already asking these questions is a significant pointer to what has already transpired, and what days, weeks, years, have passed before we see this statement today?

You see how this is done?

Historical Approach of the Sand Reckoner

I should pave the way for how the thoughts that are unfolding this morning.

But nothing afflicted Marcellus so much as the death of Archimedes, who was then, as fate would have it, intent upon working out some problem by a diagram, and having fixed his mind alike and his eyes upon the subject of his speculation, he never noticed the incursion of the Romans, nor that the city was taken. In this transport of study and contemplation, a soldier, unexpectedly coming up to him, commanded him to follow to Marcellus; which he declining to do before he had worked out his problem to a demonstration, the soldier, enraged, drew his sword and ran him through. Others write that a Roman soldier, running upon him with a drawn sword, offered to kill him; and that Archimedes, looking back, earnestly besought him to hold his hand a little while, that he might not leave what he was then at work upon inconclusive and imperfect; but the soldier, nothing moved by his entreaty, instantly killed him. Others again relate that, as Archimedes was carrying to Marcellus mathematical instruments, dials, spheres, and angles, by which the magnitude of the sun might be measured to the sight, some soldiers seeing him, and thinking that he carried gold in a vessel, slew him. Certain it is that his death was very afflicting to Marcellus; and that Marcellus ever after regarded him that killed him as a murderer; and that he sought for his kindred and honored them with signal favors.

First off, as Plato I understand "the secret" of the Building of the Pyramids. Why and what it means as a model of comprehension about the building blocks of nature.

So "carefully think in conclusion" about what this post means as you near it's end. For I had much more to say about it philosophically, but that would be stepping ahead to "now." :)

Anyway

Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.

A lot of people do not understand that if you look to the cosmo, you do not just look at what is evident from observation, but that your observation is increased, as you enhance your perceptions about the "real depth" of that universe.

IN "LHC Factoids," presented by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance, some of the tantilizing ideas about the complexity of the information is being discussed. To me, this presents an opportune time to gain perspective from the "bottom up" discussed by Frank Wilczek .

If the sand is melted into a lense or a diamond, what view had been established by Frank that you might say his lense "is" distorted? If you read the article you understand the context, but until then, what use any "mountain/pyramid to climb" if you did not understand the complexity of the information?

Archimedes met an untimely death while deep in thought, pondering a figure he had drawn in the sand. He did not see the Roman soldier approach, sword in hand. The mosaic portrays this historical event

About Dimension

John Baez's link this morning in his comment is important for a lot of different angles... ummm... reasons?:)

So when you are pointed towards the valuation of all these "sand particles," it not that you want to look like an "ostrich and bury your head in the sand," but that you want to retain perspective on the complexity of the "sand castles" that mathematicans like to build? So you tend to look for the technique concerning the point, breadth and width of the evolving statemntement of the projective geoemtries?

A space is a collection of entities called points. Both terms are undefined but their relation is important: space is superordinate while point is subordinate. Our everyday notion of a point is that it is a position or location in a space that contains all the possible locations. Since everything doesn't happen in exactly the same place, we live in what can rightly be called a space, but points need not be point-like. Any kind of object can be a point. Other geometric objects, for instance, are totally acceptable (lines, planes, circles, ellipses, conic sections) as are algebraic entities (functions, variables, parameters, coefficients) or physical measurements (time, speed, temperature, index of refraction). Even so-called "real" things can be points in a space: people are points in the space of a nation's population, nations are points in the global political space, and telephones are points in the space of a telecommunications network.

So of course you always start off with Euclidean perspective, and work from there. So, you have "one" grain of sand? One raindrop? One string? Okay, you get my point yet?

The beginning of the Universe?

I want people to realize where the strings fit in. I can't help but stress that such advances to "the cause" of what perception is necessary had to start off in a "avenue" like all things, this road leads to the universe we have today.



Because it starts off in the analogy of "the string" makes this feature no less important then the "sargeant major" of Robert Laughlin's condense matter theorist view.

See:

What are those Quantum Microstates-Tuesday, October 18, 2005

A Perspective on Powers of Ten?

Now, here is a SuperNova for Real

The Crab Nebula from VLT Credit: FORS Team, 8.2-meter VLT, ESO



Now the "ultimate proof" is to hold in our hands the matters defined by objects. This is the culmination of all dimensional perspectives, being "condensed to the moment" we hold the stardust samples in our hands. In that case, it may be of a meteorite/comet in passing?

Now we are going back to our computers for a moment here.

Now we know what can be done in terms of computer programming, and what simulations of events can do for us, but what happens, when we look out into space and watch events unfold as they do in our models?

Interaction with matter

In passing through matter, gamma radiation ionizes via three main processes: the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production.

Photoelectric Effect: This describes the case in which a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, ejecting that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the binding energy of the electron. The photoelectric effect is the dominant energy transfer mechanism for x-ray and gamma ray photons with energies below 50 keV (thousand electron volts), but it is much less important at higher energies.
Compton Scattering: This is an interaction in which an incident gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder of the original photon's energy being emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon with an emission direction different from that of the incident gamma photon. The probability of Compton scatter decreases with increasing photon energy. Compton scattering is thought to be the principal absorption mechanism for gamma rays in the intermediate energy range 100 keV to 10 MeV (megaelectronvolts), an energy spectrum which includes most gamma radiation present in a nuclear explosion. Compton scattering is relatively independent of the atomic number of the absorbing material.
Pair Production: By interaction via the Coulomb force, in the vicinity of the nucleus, the energy of the incident photon is spontaneously converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. A positron is the anti-matter equivalent of an electron; it has the same mass as an electron, but it has a positive charge equal in strength to the negative charge of an electron. Energy in excess of the equivalent rest mass of the two particles (1.02 MeV) appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and the recoil nucleus. The positron has a very short lifetime (about 10-8 seconds). At the end of its range, it combines with a free electron. The entire mass of these two particles is then converted into two gamma photons of 0.51 MeV energy each.

I wanted to include this information about Gamma Rays first so you understand what happens in space, as we get this information. I want to show you that there is faster ways that we recognize these events, and this includes, recognition of what the spacetime fabric tells us from one place in the universe, to another.

Does it look the same? Check out, "Going SuperNova 3Dgif by Quasar9"

Now, take a look at this below.

Four hundred years ago, sky watchers, including the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler, were startled by the sudden appearance of a "new star" in the western sky, rivaling the brilliance of the nearby planets. Now, astronomers using NASA's three Great Observatories are unraveling the mysteries of the expanding remains of Kepler's supernova, the last such object seen to explode in our Milky Way galaxy

What can we learn about our modelling capabilties, and what can we learn about the events in space that need to be further "mapped?" How shall we do this?

Gamma ray indicators prepared us for something that was happening. Now with this "advance notice" we look back, and watch it unfold?

A new image taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope provides a detailed look at the tattered remains of a supernova explosion known as Cassiopeia A (Cas A). It is the youngest known remnant from a supernova explosion in the Milky Way. The new Hubble image shows the complex and intricate structure of the star's shattered fragments. The image is a composite made from 18 separate images taken in December 2004 using Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS).

If advance indication are possible besides gamma ray detection, then what form would this take? Could we map the events as we learn of what happen in LIGO or LIsa operations, and how the "speed of light" is effected in a vacuum?

Now this comes to the second part, and question of indications of information released to the "bulk perspective" as the event unfolds as this SuperNova is.

Bulk:

Note that in the type IIA and type IIB string theories closed strings are allowed to move everywhere throughout the ten-dimensional space-time (called the bulk), while open strings have their ends attached to D-branes, which are membranes of lower dimensionality (their dimension is odd - 1,3,5,7 or 9 - in type IIA and even - 0,2,4,6 or 8 - in type IIB, including the time direction).

Now advancement in model assumption pushes perspective where it did not exist before.

You had to understand the nature of "GR" in pushing perspective, in the way this post is unfolding. Gamma ray indicators, are events that are "tied to the brane" and in this sense, information is held to the brane. The "fermion principle" and identifcation of Type IIA and IIB is necessary, as part of the move to M theory?

Thus when we look at Gamma rays they are not "separate from the event" while the bulk perspective, allows geoemtrics to invade the "new world" beyond the confines of non-euclidean geometries.

As I pointed out, the succession of Maxwell and all the eqautions (let there be light) are still dveloped from the center outwards, and in this perspective gravitational waves wrap the event. Thus the "outer most covering" is a much higher vision and dynamical nature, then what we assume as "ripples in space."

Bulk perspectve is a necessary revision/addition to how we think and include gravitational waves, by incorporating the "gravitonic perception" as a force carrier and extension of the Standard model.

While it has been thought by me to include the "Tachyon question", as a faster then light entity, the thought is still of some puzzlement that this information precedes the gamma ray detection, and hence, serves to elucidate the understanding of our perceptions of the early events as they unfold, as a more "sounding" reason to how we look at these early events?

If those whose views have been entertaining spacetravel, as I have exemplified in previous post, then it was of some importance that model enhancement would serve to help the future of spacetravel in all it's outcomes, as we now engaged, as ISCAP is engaging.

See:

Einstein@Home

LIGO: