Where are my keys?

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

The Extra-Dimensions?

So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

Lisa Randall:I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

And what is it that we don't see? I thought of a comment somewhere that spoke about what first started to make it's appearance in how we communicate?

Time is the Unseen fourth Dimension

They were able to create what we recognize today as the "elliptical" and "hyperbolic" non-Euclidean geometries. Most of Saccheri's first 32 theorems can be found in today's non-Euclidean textbooks. Saccheri's theorems are prefaced by "Sac."

One of my greatest "aha moments" came when I realized Non-euclidean geometries. I had to travel the history first with Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri, Bolya and Lobachevsky, for this to make an impression, and I can safely say, that learning of Gauss and Riemann, I was truly impressed.

Einstein had to include that "extra dimension of time." Greater then, or less then, 180 degrees and we know "this triangle" can take on some funny shapes when you apply them "to surfaces" that are doing funny things.?:)

Second, we must be wary of the "God of the Gaps" phenomena, where miracles are attributed to whatever we don't understand. Contrary to the famous drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost, here we are tempted to conclude that the keys must lie in whatever dark corners we have not searched, rather than face the unpleasant conclusion that the keys may be forever lost.

Let me just say that "it is not the fact that any drinking could have held the mind" of the person, but when they absentmindedly threw their car keys. The "point is" that if the light shines only so far, what conclusion should we live with?

Moving to the Fifth

So of course whatever real estate you are buying, make sure the light is shining on what your willing to purchase? Is this not a good lesson to learn?

Moving any idea to a fifth dimension I thought was important in relation to seeing what Einstein had done. See further: Concepts of the Fifth Dimension. I illustrate more ways in which we may see that has not been seen for most could have helped the mind see how this is accomplished in current day geometric methods.

Why was this thought "wrong" when one may of thought to include "gravity and light" together, after the conclusion of spacetime's 3+1? Gravity. What Had Maxwell done? What Had Riemann done?

You knew "the perfect symmetry" had to be reduced to General Relativity?

Greg Landsberg:

Two types of the extra-dimensional effects observable at collides.

A graviton leaves our world for a short moment of time, just to come back and decay into a pair of photons (the DØ physicists looked for that particular effect).

A graviton escapes from our 3-dimensional world in extra dimensions (Megaverse), resulting in an apparent energy non-conservation in our three-dimensional world.

So why would it matter to us if the universe has more than 3 spatial dimensions, if we can not feel them? Well, in fact we could “feel” these extra dimensions through their effect on gravity. While the forces that hold our world together (electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions) are constrained to the 3+1-“flat” dimensions, the gravitational interaction always occupies the entire universe, thus allowing it to feel the effects of extra dimensions. Unfortunately, since gravity is a very weak force and since the radius of extra dimensions is tiny, it could be very hard to see any effects, unless there is some kind of mechanism that amplifies the gravitational interaction. Such a mechanism was recently proposed by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali, who realized that the extra dimensions can be as large as one millimeter, and still we could have missed them in our quest for the understanding of how the universe works!

Of course these ideas are experimentally being challenged, like any good scientist would want of his theory. See EOT-WASH GROUP(4)

Angels and Demons on a Pinhead

"Observations always involve theory."Edwin Hubble

Curvature Parameters

Of course I had to point to the cosmological understanding that took us to this "geometrical understanding of things that are large." But this is to be short, while I crunch the thoughts of the process to the pinhead. You can follow the "picture links" and learn more on your own time.


Calabi-Yau manifold (3D projection made with Mathematica)-

In either case, gravity acting in the hidden dimensions affects other non-gravitational forces such as electromagnetism. In fact, Kaluza and Klein's early work demonstrated that general relativity with five large dimensions and one small dimension actually predicts the existence of electromagnetism. However, because of the nature of Calabi-Yau manifolds, no new forces appear from the small dimensions, but their shape has a profound effect on how the forces between the strings appear in our four dimensional universe. In principle, therefore, it is possible to deduce the nature of those extra dimensions by requiring consistency with the standard model, but this is not yet a practical possibility. It is also possible to extract information regarding the hidden dimensions by precision tests of gravity, but so far these have only put upper limitations on the size of such hidden dimensions.

How many would have thought that such a micro-perspective could have been ever be taken down to "this level" and found an analogy that is suitable? You needed something more here to consider, yet, I will call it "angel and demons" for those who like the mystery.


Image: courtesy Andrew J. Hanson, Indiana University-A computer-generated rendering of a possible six-dimensional geometry similar to those studied by UW-Madison physicist Gary Shiu.

I will try and spell out what is happening at such a microperspective level. You might wonder, how did such ideas become what is, "the good and evil of the world" is really a part of the dynamics that we see geometrically enhanced, as we delve ever deeper into this mystery of reductionism and such. On how, we may look at cosmology that "is different" with this perspective.

Energy "is" Gravitationally Related

At some point, those considering "all this energy" and the way reduction is assigned to the energy at all levels, what shall any calorimetric pick up as such collision processes seek to define "every contact" as we want to "map the pinhead" accordingly?

Lubos Motl saids that he sees the relation to such dynamical situations as "fruitful research" toward the understanding of the cosmological descriptions implied from such micro states. To have it listed according to a "geometrical perspective" we might be able to assign each universe? Okay! He did not say that exactly, so check into his blog entry for an update.

I'd like to thank Quasar9 for reporting on this as well.

Orbitals



My thoughts have been there toward reductionism's more cosmological counterpart for some time now. So I enjoy, that the views that I have had about the microperspective have indeed been sanctioned at some science level according to the scientist in the know. Yes, I can prove my thoughts here for you, so you know what I mean.


The star Eta Carina is ejecting a pair of huge lobes that form a "propeller" shape. Jet-like structures are emanating from the center (or "waist"), where the star (quite small on this scale) is located.

Now it is indeed a "greater depth of perception" that asks us to delve into the microperspective of string world. How is it the cosmological world can have such similarities, while the story of the Calabi Yau, makes itself a headlight news current in the research of string theory?

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

During those early moments, matter was an ultrahot, superdense brew of particles called quarks and gluons rushing hither and thither and crashing willy-nilly into one another. A sprinkling of electrons, photons and other light elementary particles seasoned the soup. This mixture had a temperature in the trillions of degrees, more than 100,000 times hotter than the sun's core.

See:

Angels and Demons

Doppelgänger Favors Oscillate

Music of the Spheres

A Clear Presence-Friday

Theoretical Challenges

Stephen Hawking from the University of Cambridge, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, addresses the audience during a ceremony in Beijing, June 19, 2006. Hawking, author of the best-selling 'A Brief History of Time,' said on Thursday humans must colonise other planets in different solar systems or face extinction. (Jason Lee/Reuters)

However, by using "matter/antimatter annihilation", velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years.

It's just one of those things that attracts our attention as we ponder the nature of the universe and how our modelling may change the way we see now. What proof for such things and we look at the basis of what we had been doing and we make changes accordingly.

More modern variations of tomography involve gathering projection data from multiple directions and feeding the data into a tomographic reconstruction software algorithm processed by a computer. Different types of signal acquisition can be used in similar calculation algorithms in order to create a tomographic image. With current 2005 technology, tomograms are derived using several different physical phenomena including X-rays, gamma rays, positron electron annihilation reaction, nuclear magnetic resonance, ultrasound, electrons, and ions. These yield CT, SPECT, PET, MRI, ultrasonography, 3d-TEM, and atom probe tomograms, respectively.

It never made much sense to me as time progressed, yet, I found myself challenging the very notions of what physics and experiment leads us, and what thoughts generated, could help propel our thinking forward. Why sound? If we thought such analogies are going to serve us then why would scientists be so misleading as to say "sound is the way we think about the universe?"

Now it is something much different that I think about these things. What caused this?

A way in which one can think and see and not have noticed the universe looks much differently from adopting these views. So of course I speak about lagrangian views and gravitational influences as a much different picture of the cosmos then the one we see as we look up. Or, as how we might look at the sun. The sun's eye?

So as usual today as I move through the "bloggeries of scientists," I look at what they are displaying. The post previous to this one of my article was instigated by reading John Baez's site and what he had there of course sparked what had written previous on the topic of, "Megalithic carved stone balls from Scotland." Yes that was in December of 2004 I wrote my article.

Artifacts of our thinking?

Now this morning of course I went over to Clifford's Blog, "Asymptotia" to have a look there to come to see what he had posted today. The Antikythera Mechanism



Now considering the information about our beliefs of what transpired in our history about gears and such, how is it we could have lost sight of mechanisms like this to have to re-invent the gear?

While occasional discoveries, such as the Antikythera mechanism, have forced scientists to reassess the technology of ancient civilization, critics regard most cases of OOPArt as the result of mistaken interpretation or wishful thinking. Supporters regard them as evidence that mainstream science is overlooking huge areas of knowledge, either willfully or through ignorance.

For me it has been an interesting journey having the freedom's to explore. Try and make sense of the world. Now I am experiencing the frustrations I have about the trends towards capitalism and sociological deconstruction of those things I would think should be the basis of our social fabric "as signs" of our sisterly and brotherly of caring for each other.

Plato:

So should we let the resistance of fear insight distrust of the media, and have good science minds disrupt by instigating false reports like the one did by Alan Sokal in regards to quantum gravity? Nice way to treat those who move up to face the challenge of a theoretical world that expects the same validation as any process?

AS if the Sokal affair wasn't enough, that one could use a computerized program to write a paper on quantum gravity? That those of us being ignorant of the process could be so easily fooled, has some how taken on a new thought here. About what String theory has done? What Peter Woit has placed in his information?

Hopefully this was not the nefarious intent of such information being divulged to the public as a speculation on "science's part" to do battle with the "evil forces of disinformation?"


Alone in the Universe?

So left alone to ponder the nature of the universe how can we not be affected by what has been put out there by scientists for us lay people to ponder about the directions we are going. That in our own thinking now biased, we move forward?

What will become of the understanding of our nature as we explore those things with which we are not accustomed to seeing? Do we "shake the resolve to do the things we have done in a logical and developmental thinking?" To destroy what has been the leading theories toward what goal? Of course not.

But it is such things that ask us to consider the "anomalistic nature" that we delved ever further into the wonders of science and what will become of us? What may be revealed by discovering more of our history, and what is yet to be "reawakened" in our continuance forward.

We must look deeper into the "fabric of reality" that we can see the world in much different way. At first, some might have only recognized the "beauty of the cosmos" and it's natural designs. Then, some wondered what are these things that they become what they are?

So we were forced to consider a much greater dimension to the reality then what was just there on appearance. Of course we might have wondered what made these move the way they do, and again we ask ourselves, "what is the motivator behind these things." How is it we might see what drives this process?


This is a computer-rendered model of a partially telescoped nanotube with a Leonardo DaVinci manuscript as the background. In the manuscript, DaVinci considers the construction of bearings, and also the frictional forces that might be encountered in bearings and sliding surfaces. He also has a drawing of a constant force spring (a mass hanging from a cord over a pulley). A nanotube bearing may be the ultimate realization of some of DaVinci's dreams.

Result of Effective Changes in the Cosmos

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

But the presence of an event horizon implies a finite Hawking temperature and the conditions for defining the S Matrix cannot be fulfilled. This lack of an S Matrix is a formal mathematical problem not only in string theory but also in particle theories.

One recent attempt to address this problem invokes quantum geometry and a varying speed of light. This remains, as they say, an active area of research. But most experts doubt that anything so radical is required.

What processes would allow you to see "faster then light entities" being shown as examples of that "cross over point?" That's part of the fun isn't it when you realize what some experiments are actually checking for? :)



So yes of course, you might think about "Cerenkov radiation" and from this, what is happening in today's world, that allows us lay people, never having seen or understood, but may now do so?

SNO

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is a collaborative effort among physicists from Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. Using 1,000 tons of so-called heavy water and almost 10,000 photon detectors, they measure the flux, energy, and direction of solar neutrinos, which originate in the sun. SNO, located 6,800 feet underground in an active Ontario nickel mine, can also detect the other two types of neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. In 2001, just two years after the observatory opened, physicists at SNO solved the 30-year-old mystery of the "missing solar neutrinos." They found that the answer lies not with the sun—where many physicists had suspected that solar neutrinos undergo changes—but with the journey they take from the core of the sun to the Earth.

In the previous article I mention the "cross over point in LHC" and from this, the idea was born in mind, how the universe and the effectives rates of expansion could take place?



While it is a long shot, I thought since of layman status, what could it hurt but to speculate and see what thoughts further arise from this. Like any model perspective adopted, allows new thinking to emerge, where previously, none existed for me. So one tends to try and go with the flow and see where it ends up. At least that's what I do and now, others do too?


Blackhole Production in the Cosmos

Increase, in high energy collisions taking place, allows speed up of inflation?



So here is the jest of what allowed me to say that the effective rates of exchange in the cosmos had to have the physics related to show the reasons why the effective speed up of inflation has been detected.


Adapted from Dienes et al., Nuclear Physics B

Some theorists envision the universe as multidimensional space-time embedding a membranous entity, called a brane, also of multiple dimensions. Diagram depicts familiar 3-dimensional space (time not shown) as a vertical line. At every point along line, one extra dimension curls around with a radius (r) of no more that about 10–19 meter. Perpendicular to every point of the brane extends the bulk, another extra dimension.

Also I will give the idea of "photo/graviton association" and how "graviton in a can" allows perspective about the "effective field variations" that "may be" predicted in the vacuum as it produces new physics to emerge on the other side? Quite a mouthful I know.


The graviton is the quantum force carrier of gravity. In conventional quantum field theory, graviton processes with loops do not make sense because of incurable divergencies.

The idea then here is to understand the graviton production in particle collisions here produce some interesting "phenomena" as we see faster then light entities move beyond the confines of that "graviton in a can." So you get the jest then, that even if the boundary conditions are experimentally being tested here, the production of gravitons is very high.

So what allows faster then light entities to move beyond these confines if you did not understand the connection to the "perfect fluid" and the anomalistic nature this perfect fluid has for allowing such traversing beyond the standard model?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.

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!

Gravity and Electromagnetism?

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

Oskar Klein and Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza

What a novel idea to have the methods used by the predecessors like Maxwell, to have been united from Faraday's principals? To have Maxwell's equation Gaussian in interpretation of Riemann geometry, somehow, united by the geometries of Einstein and defined as gravity?

Then, to have Gravity and Light United?

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

It seems then that the very statement of "Unification," the "Theory of everything," does not seem so far fetched as we look at the implications of what comes after. What comes from the knowledge, extended.



I was starting to loose hope here in the efforts of blogging as well, and was thinking that the time had come to a end. But "these questions" help to fuel the understanding that I had gained by giving time to "what work" has been put out there by scientists?



To think scientists would close up shop to their elite view, would seem disastrous to me, because of the leading perspective of what the physics means along side of that math.

We need to know what is "experimentally going" on so that we can also judge what theoretical models are doing for us as we extend this knowledge gained.

I gave a few views in environmental sciences in terms of the cosmic relation as well as what Gr was being introduced using time clocks and such, for views of the topographical understanding of earth from a fluidness point of view.

Now join the "cloud cover" along side of particle collisions sources, and have we learn anything that we didn't know before, or has this push new light onto what we now see of earth, as it's placed in the cosmological frontier?

Lisa Randall on Xtra Dimensions

In physics, Randall-Sundrum models imagine that the real world is a higher-dimensional Universe described by warped geometry. More concretely, our Universe is a five-dimensional anti de Sitter space and the elementary particles except for the graviton are localized on a (3 + 1)-dimensional brane or branes.

The models were proposed in 1999 by Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum while studying technicolor models.

With the online chat yesterday I'll have to look in on Sabine Hossenfelder and Stefan's of Backreaction blog entry in this regard to look at it more in depth.


Photograph by Phil Knott
Click to view for a larger version.So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

If there are more than three dimensions out there, how does that change our picture of the universe?

The very ideas are of extra dimensions are very progressive, and are not without some history. Some people will label anything as crackpot, without understanding the history of these discussions."

Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of LAtimes.com

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

The Radius of the Little Circle

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition. Alain Connes

With such a statement, the "purity of thought," is speaking to a much more schematic understanding as we discuss the sociological thinking of mathematicians and the worlds they fantasize about? While deeper in reality the thought process(meditative) was engaged at a very subtle level, associated with the energy all pervasive.




Lee Smolin :

Another wonderful spin-off is that it turns out that the charge of the electron is related to the radius of the little circle. This should not be surprizing: If the electric field is just a manifestation of geometry, the electric charge should be, too.

THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS-Published by Houghton-Mifflin, Sep. 2006/Penguin (UK), Feb. 2007, Page 46

In "Star Shine," we start from a very large circle, but there is much to see from this circle, when we consider it's radius. We think "continuity" is somehow not involved, if we freeze this circle, and call it a discrete measure of the universe's age? Yet we know to well that the motivation of this universe from a "distant point" measure today entropically lives in the multitude of complexities?

Plato:

Model apprehension is part of the convergence that Lee Smolin and Brian Greene talk about, and without it, how could we look at nature and never consider that Einstein's world is a much more dynamical one then we had first learned from the lessons GR supplied, about gravity in our world?

On page 47 of the Trouble with Physics Lee goes on to say further down the page:

Lee Smolin:

Unfortunately, Einstein and the other enthusiasts were wrong. As with Nordstrom's theory, the idea of unification by adding a hidden dimension failed. It is important to understand why.

If all one had was the "cosmological view" one could be very happy about the way in which his observations have been deduced from the measures of our mechanical means, that we say that GR is very well suited.

Yet it has been through th efforts of reductionism that we have said, "hey there is indeed more depth to the views we have, that the mechanical measures are being tuned accordingly?"



Juan Maldacena:

The strings move in a five-dimensional curved space-time with a boundary. The boundary corresponds to the usual four dimensions, and the fifth dimension describes the motion away from this boundary into the interior of the curved space-time. In this five-dimensional space-time, there is a strong gravitational field pulling objects away from the boundary, and as a result time flows more slowly far away from the boundary than close to it. This also implies that an object that has a fixed proper size in the interior can appear to have a different size when viewed from the boundary (Fig. 1). Strings existing in the five-dimensional space-time can even look point-like when they are close to the boundary. Polchinski and Strassler1 show that when an energetic four-dimensional particle (such as an electron) is scattered from these strings (describing protons), the main contribution comes from a string that is close to the boundary and it is therefore seen as a point-like object. So a string-like interpretation of a proton is not at odds with the observation that there are point-like objects inside it.

While energy is being exemplified according to the nature of the particles we see in calorimetric design, what said that the energy here is not topologically smooth in it's orientations? Even we we move our views to the quantum regime.

Maybe having solved the "Continuum Hypothesis," we learned much about Einstein's inclinations?

The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I can get from any one point on this table to any other point by passing continuously from one point to a "neighboring" one, and repeating this process a (large) number of times, or, in other words, by going from point to point without executing "jumps." I am sure the reader will appreciate with sufficient clearness what I mean here by "neighbouring" and by "jumps" (if he is not too pedantic). We express this property of the surface by describing the latter as a continuum.Albert Einstein p. 83 of his Relativity: The Special and the General Theory

Even Einstein had to add the "extra dimension" so we understood what non-euclidean views meant in a geometrical sense. I again refer here to Klein's Ordering of Geometries so one understands the schematics and evolution of that geometry.

Box Counting or "Points" on the Strings Length?

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory! Author Unknown

We understand I think the relevance in regards ot the cosmological views that GR helps us understand in the curvatures inherent as an expression of the cosmos.

What we may have trouble with is the value we may assign such curvatures taken down to the quantum regime. This may seem incompatible, yet, the dynamical nature of the energy is never really that far from speaking from the particle/energy inhernet in nature, as a energy determinant value?

Why would you treat the quantum realm any different then you would the cosmological one, if the assumption is that GR is predicted?



Fractal Dimenison-Tree Silhoutte

I like to think of the "roots and the rings of history" here so that you may see the comparative value of thinking of the "building blocks" not so much as "boxes" but as energy values related to the circle.

There really was a reason to fear pathological entities like the Koch coastline and Peano's monster curve. Here were creations so twisted and distorted that they did not fit into the box of contemporary mathematics. Luckily, mathematics was fortified by the study of the monsters and not destroyed by them. Whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

Take the Koch coastline and examine it through a badly focused lens. It appears to have a certain length. Let's call it 1 unit. Sharpen the focus a bit so that you can resolve details that are ⅓ as big as those seen with the first approximation. The curve is now four times longer or 4 units. Double the resolution by the same factor. Using a focus that reveals details 1/9 the first focus gives us a coastline 16 times longer and so on. Such an activity hints at the existence of a quantifiable characteristic.

To be a bit more precise, every space that feels "real" has associated with it a sense of distance between any two points. On a line segment like the Koch coastline, we arbitrarily chose the length of one side of the first iterate as a unit length. On the Euclidean coordinate plane the distance between any two points is given by the Pythagorean theorem

Planck time and what new physics would we have shown once we got down to these lengths? The energy of discernation has deluded us into what was once uncertainty has now QGP idealizations and the inherency of the thinking along side of high energy considerations.

Discretium and continuity are not at odds here just that the "realm of thinking" is limited to the GR suppositons about what the world is in cosmological discretium views? Yet, we know at such levels, the "continuity" of the energy has taken over. The coast lines appear fuzzy, yet in "box counting" it doesn't seem that way. What are it's limitations then, when our views meet uncertainty about what discribes the coast line? Shall we now refer to the days, weeks, months, as an energy valuation of the circle, in the trees root and the history it contains?

Pick a "ring/circle" of the tree and tell me what happen during that time?

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?

A Philosophical Juggernaut

GRACE is the first ESSP mission. It will obtain the most precise measurements of Earth’s gravitational field that have ever been obtained. Improved resolution of the gravity field will lead to important advances in a number of disciplines that study the Earth's climate.

When you realize what "timeclocks" can do, you then realize the world view is a changing.

It's far cry from the days of Einstein's hotstove analogy, but the sense is, that the observer can definitely be affected by the "weight of his outlook."

Your weight is not the same everywhere. Because Earth is not a perfect sphere, the pull of gravity is stronger in some places than in others. It's also in a constant state of change, moving with Earth's mantle, falling sea levels, and even tropical storms. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission, better known as GRACE, was launched in 2002 by NASA and the German Aerospace Center to measure exactly how what goes up must come down.

See:

A Sphere that is Not so Round

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:

A Constant that Isn't Constant?

Now I am wrting this because some are persistent about the speed of light.

I have looked at this and tried to accompany this thinking with actual work that has been put out there, and that has developed along these lines.

I will give a list of links and thiking that I had archived for looking at this issue and explain as best I can what one must look for.

Since the 1930s physicists have discussed whether the constants that appear in the equations for the fundamental laws of physics--such as the speed of light in vacuum and the electron charge--are actually constant. If they have changed over time, nature may have worked in different ways at different times, even if the equations themselves have remained fixed. Modern theories that attempt to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces leave room for such a time-dependence. But it's not easy to look for the effect. If the speed of light were slowly decreasing, for example, we might never know it, because our measuring apparatus might be shrinking at the same time.

John Webb, of the University of New South Wales in Australia, and his colleagues, focused on the fine structure constant, which goes by the Greek letter alpha, because it has no units and is independent of any measurement system. Its current value of roughly 1/137 could not have been very different in the past, as that would have spelled trouble for our very existence. A variation in alpha by more than a factor of ten would imply that carbon atoms could not be stable, and organic life could not have arisen.

So I'll deal first with the Fine Struture Constant and what I have got here. Stories in the news reflect at a fundamenatl level what is going onin the society of scientists? Whether a journalistic flavour is good or not, the basis of these myths propogated, if they are ever relegated to the "weird" or something not quite right, then one questions whether such journalistic behavior is very good?

But like myths, we look past the haze and fog to try and discern why such impulse and flavour was ever drawn to the topic at hand, and what is really going on in the society of scientists.


Change's in the Fine Structure Constant?

The world's most precise atomic clocks are now made from "atomic fountains". A gas of atoms within a vacuum chamber is trapped by a set of intersecting laser beams and cooled to a temperature close to absolute zero. The ball of atoms is then tossed vertically into the air by changing the frequency of the lasers and it passes through a microwave cavity on its way up and also on its way down as it falls under gravity. The whole process is then repeated.

Part of this attraction for me, was what was called "resonance curve."

So let's move on here.

As Van Den Broeck concludes: "

The first warp drive is still a long way off but maybe it has now become slightly less improbable.

"

An idea for achieving faster-than-light travel suggested by the Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994.1 It starts from the notion, implicit in Einstein's general theory of relativity, that matter causes the surface of spacetime around it to curve. Alcubierre was interested in the possibility of whether Star Trek's fictional "warp drive" could ever be realized. This led him to search for a valid mathematical description of the gravitational field that would allow a kind of spacetime warp to serve as a means of superluminal propulsion...

But there was a problem for me as I looked at this. I mean, if something is to attain the "speed of light" what happens to the ship? Of course along the way you meet people and learn things, and they extend the thinking.

Does it change what we know?

The ESAA group was founded with the ever present human nature of exploration in mind. The ultimate goal of the group is to physically explore the outer most human reaches, with an emphasis on intellectual exploration to achieve such goals. ESAA was founded by Fernando Loup, Edward Halerewicz, and David Waite to begin investigations into plausible methods to probe the outer reaches of known science. Fernado Loup a mathematician by trade was interested in exploring mathematical possibilities which may allow for superluminal travel. Edward Halerewicz a beginning physics student was primarily interested in popularizing advanced physical theories to encourage "outside the box thinking." David Waite a seasoned physics student was also interested in exploring the limits of known science and kept radical proposals grounded in real world physics. These three thinkers came together and discussed a recent theory within general relativity which would allow for serious superluiminal discussions.

Here is more on the Group which is now called "Stardrive.

Don't tell Lubos, because he does not accept his Martian ancestry. :)Am I a Et Alien?

"


Background on ESAA-Now Stardrive

Paul Karl Hoiland - Feb 10, 2004 7:20 am

In 1994 a Mexican mathematician, Miguel Alcubierre, discovered solutions to Einstein's equations which allow warps in the space-time metric to travel faster than the speed of light. But the proposal Dr. Alcubierre made was unrealistic on three basic grounds:

1.) It required a huge amount of negative energy. 2.) It displayed no casual connection of the ship with the field itself. 3.) The exotic energy states involved violated certain quantum energy conditions like the AWEC.

The ESAA group was founded with the ever present human nature of exploration in mind. The ultimate goal of the group is to physically explore the outer most human reaches, with an emphasis on intellectual exploration to achieve such goals.

ESAA was founded by Fernando Loup, Edward Halerewicz, and David Waite to begin investigations into plausible methods to probe the outer reaches of known science. Fernado Loup a mathematician by trade was interested in exploring mathematical possibilities which may allow for superluminal travel. Edward Halerewicz a beginning physics student was primarily interested in popularizing advanced physical theories to encourage "outside the box thinking." David Waite a seasoned physics student was also interested in exploring the limits of known science and kept radical proposals grounded in real world physics. These three thinkers came together and discussed a recent theory within general relativity which would allow for serious superluiminal discussions.

These discussions were opened in December 2000 to all that were interested within a yahoo discussion forum called the "Alcubierre Warp Drive" Club, named for the proposed superluimnal theory. The active members of the yahoo club then christened a name for themselves which became ESAA. The name ESAA was created by a club supporter named Simon Jenks, which is a Greek acronym for E Somino Ad Astra, or "From a Dream to the Stars." ESAA is an open and diverse group of individuals who are interested in seeking out nature's secrets to make some of mankind's most profound dreams come true.

The ESAA group consist of physicists, mathematicians, engineers, students, and layman whose members are spread throughout the globe. All members have an equal say on group developments and collectedly the group has worked on three separate modifications to "Warp Drive" theories alone. In more recent times Dr. Paul Hoiland has become a valuable member of the ESAA group. Bringing much needed experience and wisdom to the group as well as creating the Journal of Advanced Theoretical Propulsion, based on the ESAA philosophy.

ESAA History on the Warp Drive

The online discussion forum the Alcubierre Warp Drive, began as a novel experiment, where members would answer questions that interested parties had for the new science. The early discussions within the Alcubierre Warp Drive began with philosophical debates, random brain storming, and slowly evolved to include mathematical discussions. It was during this new phase where Waite joined the club discussion, and we carefully began discussing the ramifications of his proposed warp drive. Unfortunately as soon as the mathematics became the bulk of the discussion, most of the philosophical debates were lost, but at this point Fernando Loup and Edward Halerewicz began to describe the possible consequences of Waite's space-time. During the discussion of Waite's idea the club was very grateful to receive advice and guidance from the very busy but gracious Dr. Alcubierre. And it was at this point that simply entertaining the idea of a new warp drive became a much more formal process, and a new theory of its own right began to form.

The three early founders put together a paper which tried to levitate some of the problems with the "Alcubierre Warp Drive," (gr-qc/0009013) specifically reducing the amount of negative energy required within the theory. The paper was posted at the LANL ArXiv and was entitled "Reduced Total Energy Requirements for a Modified Alcubierre Warp Drive Space-time" (gr-qc/0107097). The paper also was not accepted for publication in established journals do to the inexperience of the authors in writing for academia. Also the paper was later found to have a few problems, e.g. the lapse function used to lower the energy requirements distorted time within the "warp bubble."

Since the energy problem was dealt in more creative ways such as varying the warp bubbles parameters as suggested by Chris Van Den Broeck (gr-qc/9905084), the ESAA group decided to attack another problem. One of the problems raised with the Alcubierre Warp Drive was that its superluminal nature would be impossible to control. If this were the case then using Warp Drives for superluminal travel would be out of the question, new members joined the ESAA group and decided to construct another paper.

The group wanted to know how superluminal motion would affect null geodesics and how this might be used as a clue to have control with a superluminal warp drive. The second paper put fourth by ESAA was entitled "A Causally Connected Superluminal Warp Drive Space-time (gr-qc/0202021), which proposed varying null geodesics to counter the superluminal problem. With this work several esteemed physicists gave there opinion on the paper, they largely argued against it because horizons will always form with superluminal motion. However ESAA argued against this reasoning as the horizons are still present they are simply moved by a dual light cone interpretation for space-time, the horizons just occur at another place. Expert opinion on this matter was that even if that held up, we couldn't show that a dual light cone interpretation is possible.

From this point ESAA has had some heated arguments, which gained some enemies and made a few friends. It was however mutually agreed that such a paper would never be accepted in an existing journal and so no additional publication was pursed on this paper.

The next paper proposed by the ESAA group was a paper to explore how Warp Drive space-time affect the geodesics of photons. From Alcubierre's original paper it is not to difficult to realize how the geodesics of photons become affected as was shown by Clarke, et. al (gr-qc/9907019). However a Portuguese researcher named Jose Natario showed that energy of the photons distorted by a warp drive would be lethal if traveling near the speed of light (gr-qc/0110086). This proved to be troubling as the popular press picked up on it as being the "Warp Drives are impossible," so ESAA decided to show how Warp Drives could still be possible with these "lethal" photons. It was found that a properly chosen dynamic space-time in several layers could act to slow the dynamic nature of the photons.

This solution ESAA proposed was entitled "On the Problems of Hazardous Matter and Radiation at Faster than Light Speeds in the Warp Drive Space-time" (gr-qc/0207109). However some of the excited authors mistook the slowing dynamics for velocity, when in reality it is the energy that is reduced, so the photons are non lethal.

Further inspection by ESAA and others have shown the lethal photons are fictitious as they exist with a Cauchy Surface, the photons energy doesn't change in the "warp bubble." There's just a frequency shift caused by the Cauchy region, since there is little interest in Warp Drives do the "toy" Alcubierre model ESAA has been slow in correcting this error. For these reasons this paper has not been considered for further publication, but again have shown that warp drives are mathematically feasible. However the ESAA solution dubbed a "shield" from its science fiction counter part does indicate the possibility of a dual light cone region as suggested by the second work which might warrant further investigation.

There were questions then too about the "specific design of the ship" and the group wondered. What designs did they come up with?



Doctor Paul Karl Hoiland - Jan 27, 2004 4:26 pm

Fernando's general idea was to use certain effects to escape off the brane. But while his proposed testing of such with high energy particles could open the door to testing out aspect of the RS model in general, he basically discovered that it does not allow matter to escape the brane. I'm not sure who exactly pointed this out to him since he tended to exit our group again. During his time in our group I had discovered what he was looking at was a brane lensing effect. In studying such I discovered it modifies gravity and the path of particles on and off the brane.

In the case of the extra dimension the length or volume is determined by the bulk cosmological constant(1) on both a local and global level. Gravity becomes higher dimensional at scales where

1/r ¨ 1/r^1+N.

But little has ever been mentioned of its modification of the on the brane Minkowski metric as well as the AdS one. Generally, what Fernando had noticed is that if you adjust the local Israel condition you can change the "warp factor" and that regular positive matter can adjust this. Its almost a pity he withdrew that third paper from GRG. With a bit of modification he had a perfect way to alter gravity in any local region which would have been a great test bed for certain Brane Models in general even if it did not support his hyperdrive idea.

I think after looking at this idea one could achieve what to a remote observer was faster travel times even though you never exceed C in the local frame. It literally was the original ST style warp drive. You could travel through a Universe that is smaller with no violations of the laws of physics in either the local or remote region.

Dr. Paul seems to have removed his links from one location to the next? Well, there are other names that can be followed up, if one thought to pursue this further.

So what was Dr. Paul refering too?

See:

It is shown that our 3 + 1 Brane Einstein Universe is a trapped shell in a Higher Dimensional spacetime (Bulk). It is also shown that the Israel Condition acts like a pressure to trap matter in Einstein's Universe, and that if we overcome this pressure, we can make a particle leave Einstein's Universe and enter the Bulk. The conditions that allow the entrance to the Bulk permit its use to send signals or particles faster than the speed of the light, when “seen” from the Brane due to Brane Lensing. However, in the Bulk the particles remain subluminal. Our model differs from all the standard Braneworlds models, because all matter is trapped in this 3 + 1 Einstein Shell, independently of what the Standard Model might impose. What we propose is a new Braneworld Model using some of the features of the Chung-Freese Model, plus a way to overcome the pressure from the Israel Condition. Our model will remotely resemble the Davoudias Hewett, Rizzo modifications made to Randall-Sundrum Model that allow fermions (not only gravitons) to enter the Bulk, although we must outline that we are proposing a different idea.

Non-Orientation of Space-Time Proves M-Theories Compacted or Embedded Regions