Dimensional Referencing

While the basis of the cosmic string lying in ruins in terms of verification that others went after, it does noes not in anyway reduce the impoirtance of how Andrey Kravtsov's animation can be less in our assumption of the supersymmetrical universe?

It's as if the neurons are connecting, in the vast universe, to bring parts of itself to linking in some "visionary image," that mankind has connected, from one thought to another.

Never mind about Jacque Distler's interlinking software capabilites, as this has been going on for sometime now, here, and on other forums.

Even the term Trackback is new, while this neuronical developement was understood in terms of Andrey Kravtsov's computer imaging, it becomes even more apparent, as the images I bring forward take their place in our thinking.

There is more to follow for sure.

They call them trackbacks." I just call them a continuation of the interlinking that is going on in the universe.:) Wordful quotation, or in imagery, we can track it to the source eventually?

Phase Changes

It's a way of seeing dynamical movement and phase states? If Alice didn't step into mirror world, what would Young's experiment have meant in relation to path integrals?

G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1). You have to realize that such emergence into the views of universal formulations, has to have some associative response from the quantum world to see that such relevance in the cosmological particpations could have ever pointed to the motivation of these universes coming into being, that it would go through a phase transformation relevant to each particle discription? Is this correct? This presented itself in a "way of seeing" that stretches the mind imaginations tht I wonder have I indeed gone off the deep end.

Columbus, or the Greeks, over some "edge" and be done with it? :) No there are always greate rimagnations working to solve the fantasies that Dirac may of set in motion for Feynman.

So "Toy models" are created to house the systemic movements. From this, calorimetric instruments are developed.

Now we change the way we have been doing things and the following paragraph makes more sense?

We had to break out of the moulding with which society has cast itself. It requires "greater ingenuity and imagination" to go beyond the standard model.

Shall we forget about Dirac's abilties besides writing to the algebraic equations, or Feynman's extension of the matrices, to toy models?

Ant World

Three dimensions are all we see -- how could there be any more? Einstein's general theory of relativity tells us that space can expand, contract, and bend. If one direction were to contract down to an extremely tiny size, much smaller than an atom, it would be hidden from our view. If we could see on small enough scales, that hidden dimension might become visible.

Some actually testng that has been postulated to look at what may be anywhere between the "inaccessible Planck length and infinity."

Project Satellite Energy Exchange (SEE)

December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Tony Smith:

As to the time of Feynman soving the QED problem, in 1941 (according to Mehra’s Feynman biography The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford 1994)) Feynman had the inspiration from Dirac’s paper of using the Lagrangian method, which led to Feynman’s 1942 Ph.D. thesis. As to that thesis, Mehra says “… Feynman mentioned that “the problem of the form that relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, take from this point of view, remains unsolved. …”. So, Feynman’s Shelter Island relativistic QED solution was developed after his 1942 Ph.D. thesis.

I must admit this morning, I woke up with some questions around non gravitational effects, and how we would see this in relation to the two body problem. Now again, I reiterate, that as a student, I am going to make mistakes, but I am equally enthralled with the idea that a "channel of movement" can exist in our perceptions, where high energy considerations where I had previously thought only the strong gravitatinal influences could exist. Now I know there is more to this then previously thought and I lay out the perception built over this

Scientific relevance of the Equivalence Principle

It is possible to ascribe two conceptually different kinds of masses to a body: an inertial mass and a gravitational mass. The inertial mass is the proportionality factor between a force (any kind of force) applied to the body and the acceleration it acquires in response to it in an inertial laboratory.The gravitational mass is a measurement of the property of the body to attract gravitationally anyother body (gravitational active mass), or to be gravitationally attracted by any other body(gravitational passive mass). Assuming the validity of the action−reaction principle (which leads toconclude that the center of mass of an isolated system must move with constant velocity in aninertial frame of reference) also implies that the gravitational passive and active mass of a bodymust be the same. Since both concepts refer to the same physical interaction, this result appears to be quite natural. The gravitational mass is the analog in a gravitational field, of the electric chargein an electric field −it can be viewed as a gravitational charge− while it has no apparent relation (in spite of the name) with the concept of inertial mass

Current experiments would have to say that our undertanding has changed a bit, by what we have currently and experimentally understood in our involvement as a measure of RHIC production, as philosphical endeavors to change what we now know?

Gravity is the missing link in Grand Unification.

Because of our uniquely poor knowledge of gravity--the weakest of all known forces-- and because gravity must have a key role in any Grand Unification theory, many aspects of gravity must be understood in greater depth and precision.

A SEE mission would improve our knowledge of a number of gravitational parameters and effects which are needed to test unification theories and various modern theories of gravity.

Science Objectives of Project SEE:

Test the inverse-square law at separations of
meters the radius of the Earth

Test the equivalence principle by composition differences at these separations

Test for time variation of G

Test for anisotropy of space and other post-Einsteinian effects

In this regard then, Langrangian perspectve in the Sun Earth relation, had some interesting perspective developements that bring satellite travel into perspective, so too our energy consumptions, for extended deep space travel, more then likely as we now "see" these relations.



Yes, I had indeed created some of the understanding that arises from Time Variable measures, and how we now percieve the earth. Not as some illustrous pearl that was the first images of mind, as John Glenn peered upon this planet, but now, through understanding and measure, we "see" the earth in new ways.



Not only having understood the lagrangian perspectve, I found some relevance to how we now "see" in the cosmo, but here now too, I can speak on the "WMAP mapping system" as a functionable reality of this lagrangian perspective, being pointed out in those same maps?

Dr Mark Haskins

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phemonenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

Sure, let's be true to ourselves and others, for sure.:)

Sonofusion Analogies in Geometric design?

Every picture held in mind is a link to other pictures? The larger context of the universe, is now seen in how our minds evolving such a reality through such thought constructs( it's bits and pieces) that it is not just words and equations any more, but the understanding that this picture can includes more then one thousand words of discriptive power.

It had to be really compelling that such thoughts illustrated here, had a whole geometric history underneath it. Some might of thought it again as "ad hoc," but the truly deeper perception exists whether they like to think it does not.

Lubos reminds one that no such geoemtry exists or new phsyics in this place, but it had to come from somewhere, no matter what you called the constituents of this reality.

What is Quantum Gravity?

Quantum gravity is the field devoted to finding the microstructure of spacetime. Is space continuous? Does spacetime geometry make sense near the initial singularity? Deep inside a black hole? These are the sort of questions a theory of quantum gravity is expected to answer. The root of our search for the theory is a exploration of the quantum foundations of spacetime. At the very least, quantum gravity ought to describe physics on the smallest possible scales - expected to be 10-35 meters. (Easy to find with dimensional analysis: Build a quantity with the dimensions of length using the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's constant.) Whether quantum gravity will yield a revolutionary shift in quantum theory, general relativity, or both remains to be seen.

Some would like to think themselves "so pure" that they could not plant their own poison?

It is a hard thing to remain pure in our feelings of sharing, once our egos intrude and we fight each other, for some dominance like some animal uneducated, while we dawn such clothing of the civilized being?

While earlier entries have been spoken to in terms of, what analogies can do for us in what and how we like to portray the world. Such analogies do have to be carefully considered. It okay if we speak around each other whie we move peception forward. We do not "own" any of it?:)

Lubos's last statement of the blog entry made here and linked here is of course most correct, and an understanding of the early universe? It is very hard to to see how such dynamical world could fit our views of a reality, as we peer into, with our imaginations.

With my imagination?

If One thought about creativity and the undertanding of where these deeper insights of the soul reside and emerge from, how could they emerge from the very origins, while holding the views, peering deep into space? Peering deeply, into the space inside?

So fanciful creatures we are, that we create all these models and thought constructs to help us along to concretize what the thought construct could do for us, as a measure and yardstick of that reality? So we might playfully use such analogies to open the mind to another possibility?

Sonofusion - star in a jar

Lubos Motl:

The authors admit that the number of events is not enough to build a power plant. However, there is some controversy whether the number of fusion events is what the authors say or whether it is lower by a few dozens of orders of magnitude, as implied by physics.

The mechanism behind sonoluminiscence remains a bit controversial. Claiming that a thermonuclear fusion occurs during sonoluminiscence is among the more conservative explanations. The physicist Claudia Eberlein argued that the correct explanation is that the imploding bubbles create sonic black holes and the flashes are the counterpart of Hawking radiation as the sonic black hole evaporates. You should not think that this is an example of a very, very low energy quantum gravity because the sonic black holes have no connection with the scales of gravity. It is not a supercollider in a glass of beer. But let me admit that as an undergrad, I was excited by this proposal, at least for a few minutes, but I apparently forgot the details of that encounter.

Yes, your last statement sums it up Lubos.

Now, why had such model had been gainfully employed in my analogies?

The need for a leading construct and all the geometries to be included in a particluar way? Would they match the very expressions of our universe?

While education would indeed detail the complications and ideas around such models, it is not without simplicity, that such understanding could be pictured first( Dirac comes to mind(?)), and then contain the thousand words, equations, that are to come afterward? This all evolves forma universal expressinand idea I have about how such expression are contained inthe new expressions we see of this universe.

So it is by looking for this thread of thought and emerging property of such thought, that we would have to trace it back? How would you do that if you did not believe in your interactiveness with the universe at large. An "deductive/inductive," relation with reality that one may have morphed in the exchange from "one moment to the next?" Becoming.

This is a evolving thread of growth that somehow goes on in our ever education and open mind,least we be restraint by our very own convictions and said, "here is where I lie?"

Basis of Reality by Geometric Design?

I would like to continually like to remind one of Plato's cave. If the sun is behind us, how do you relate what is seen dimensionally, and describe it from first principles? The shadows are used in a way to draw our attention to our limitations of thinking.



So I moved this internally, and the sun behind, becomes the sun from a center realized inside. Circles within circles, topologically and constructively asking, which way are we seeing now?

I was thinking here that to get to the "truer source of reality" what underlies our basic intepretations of such "thought constructs," would be to defined essentially in a geometric way, first. This is how first principle is established, as observation to a "geometric way" leads all concepts from this beginning?

Man ponders shadow, or shadow ponders itself?

So let's say you are this fellow sleeping on the bus, and he is having deep suttle thoughts about life. He generalizes what he might see of "mass psychosis" in a geometical way, as well as, see science, necessary as the basis of this expression?

You also hads to know where the beginning of all expression arose from, so this defintion is very important in that respect?

Although theoretical, it establishment with the basis of science would be very important. As Feynman diagrams are.

Example here given with Dirac?

Paul Dirac:

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

Picture is link :)

So the thought construct is very dependant on how we would look at reality and this might inject various geometric processes, yet, we are very aware of the timeline, and where this expression arose from. This is what first principle must do?

While we like to think of the "building blocks of matter" you may of liked to call them strings in the first microseconds, this still does not take you to the source of the expression of what is now geometrically enhanced? So one siads there is no geometry? And of course the Pizza Guy is amazed at how all this could exemplify itself in some way in which the false vacuum and the true vacuum can tunnel from one to another.

So definition of "brane thinking" here encases a lot of information conceptually, as we speak about the reality of such things, and how they arose? These are contained in the most simplfied picture forms. It is necessary to see into how the workings of all "thought constructs," will manifest. Why pictures beomes links to a much more detail way of thinking geometrically.

I gave Dirac as a example.



I also link Albrect Durer for a example as well.

What a Good String Theorist Should Know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is your motivation and pursuance of knowledge up to it?

HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICISTby Gerard 't Hooft

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

Languages

Primary Mathematics

Classical Mechanics

Optics

Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics

Electronics

Electromagnetism

Quantum Mechanics

Atoms and Molecules

Solid State Physics

Nuclear Physics

Plasma Physics

Advanced Mathematics

Special Relativity

Advanced Quantum Mechanics

Phenomenology

General Relativity

Quantum Field Theory

Superstring Theory

Think Math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nature's patterns

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

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

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


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

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

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

The History of String Theory:

Introduction to String Theory:

Gravity and String Theory:

Supersymmetry:

The Dimensions of String Theory:

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

The Many Types of String Theory:

New Developments in String Theory:

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

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

[ROGER PENROSE]

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

A more direct link to quote above on page 12.

Working the Angles UNtil They Add Up Too?

I assume now, you are in the non-eucldiean inferences?

If people had thought "the negative" always evil, then what value any "dynamic of thinking" if we could not resolve what we had been doing by changing the shape of our attitudes? :)



Helen Joyce:

Both spherical and hyperbolic geometries are examples of curved geometries, unlike Euclidean geometry, which is flat. In spherical geometry, the curvature is positive, in hyperbolic geometry, it is negative.

Some might have never understood the dynamics going on, and if a "backreaction" was created, what value would this serve in our thinking? I ponder. Some might think of Dirac? Some of anti-matter? In opposition, some might think of Reimann and what was encapsulate in Gauss's Mountain.

So maybe in churches, or concert halls, we might think about the ways "sound reverberates," within an enclosure? The lines in the architecture? How this resonance passes through and changes the very matters in their oscillations?

Nodes and Anti-nodes

Tool's for measure.

The center of the gyroscope is a jewel-like sphere of fused quartz. These spheres, the size of Ping-Pong balls, are the roundest objects ever made by man. The tiny spheres are enclosed inside a housing chamber to prevent disruption from sound waves, and chilled to almost absolute zero to prevent their molecular structure from creating a disturbance. The accuracy of these gyroscopes is 30 million times greater than any gyroscope ever built.

Making Strings in the lab, made me think of Clifford and the ice cream mix that he was privy too, by joining condense matter [ahem...string:] theorists, on a Friday night? :)Nitrogen, and superconductors seem to go hand in hand? Made me think of GPB and [whoops my mistake-not-nobium sphere], were mention for a reason.:)



Normally I do not like to encourage such a view held to speculations, but the transferance to 3d effective thinking and all that, had me look at WMAP, was a process lead through by valuating sound in such analogies. As a layman, I hope I am forgiven.

Is it the process?

Visitors' shadows manipulate and reshape projected images of "Buckyballs." "Buckyball," or a buckminsterfullerene molecule, is a closed cage-structure molecule with a carbon network. "Buckyball" was named for R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (1895-1983), a scientist, philosopher and inventor, best known for creating the geodesic dome.

Nanomandala:

The purposeful arrangement of individual atoms bears some resemblance to the methods monks use to laboriously create sand images particle by particle, however, Eastern and Western cultures use these bottom-up building practices with very different perceptions and purposes.

Photo and text credit: © 2003 Museum Associates/Los Angeles County Museum of Art


To me it is a interesting way of seeing what is happening in space held by perception. BUcky balls and such, from my early days of reading BuckminsterFuller and his interesting building concepts, had somehow morphed into dynamical triangulation, used in the monte carlo method of quantum gravity perceptions.

Dr. Jenny's cymatic images are truly awe-inspiring, not only for their visual beauty in portraying the inherent res-ponsiveness of matter to sound (vibration) but because they inspire a deep re-cognition that we, too, are part and parcel of this same complex and intricate vibrational matrix -- the music of the spheres! These pages illumine the very principles which inspired the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Plato, and cosmologists Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler.

Dimensional views of the "quark to quark measure" had me see the dynamics of this distance?

How much more then would such a weak field describe for us the oscillation of the neutrino, from one phase state to another. One distance to another? A revealled in cosmic rays, as "new physics perhaps" that extends beyond the standard model?



Paul Dirac

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

If for one moment you continue the thought processes in light of visionary changes sought by and spoken in context of polarization effects in the WMAP, then such views have a profound effect, to what was always interesting data from cosmological apprehensions in discovery.

Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect92 April 2006 wikipedia)

The Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect is a particle physics process which acts to enhance neutrino oscillations in matter.

While dynamic functions are being revealled to me of microprocesses( phases states), these dynamics are always interesting from what the geometrical perpecive of what was derived from Dirac.

A "three dimensional view" of what may be happening in the abstraction of space dynamics seen in UV perspective described in analogy to Gauss's coordinates?

Something much more profound and detail in a greater depth of thinking of an abstractual nature perhaps? B Field dynamics, would be a interesting comparison while holding mind in geometrical abstraction?

Antineutrinos From Distant Reactors Simulate the Disappearance of Solar Neutrinos

The potential importance of the Kamland results goes well beyond the solar-neutrino problem. Particle theorists hope that the masses and flavor compositions of the neutrino mass eigenstates will help point the way to an encompassing unification beyond today's manifestly incomplete standard model of fundamental particles and their interactions. Detailed knowledge of the neutrino states might also elucidate a central problem of cosmology: How did matter come to dominate over antimatter in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang? Does the mixing of neutrino states harbor the symmetry-breaking mechanism that could have done the trick?


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

The question always arises in my mind about the quantum harmonical oscillations, as part of a much larger inherent feature of reality, with which we might view WMAP. Or, events that arise from the sun. Could such analogy, born in the sun's process spit out the nature of the neutrino?

The plates can be made visible by mounting a mirror behind the row of plates, angled so that the top of the plates are visible to the audience (same idea as in Polarization by Scattering). Create the optimum angle for the front rows, as the back rows will be looking down on the plates anyway. Make sure the cello bow is nice and tactile by treating it with rosin before the performance. Sprinkle the sand on the plates so that it forms an even cover. Don't overdo the amount.

Increase in Output of Inverse Square Law Calculatons ?

Oh my poor layman brain. It hurts.

String theory and the crisis in particle physics by Bert Schroer

The third point of the list is perhaps the most serious one. A theory which has in more than 30 years been unable to get its relation to physics straightened out is presented to physics students as a theory of everything which supersedes QFT before their critical faculties have been strengthened by learning about the concepts and open problems of the most successful theory of particle physics.

When is enough, enough? I think all the warnngs have been heard and the continued barage of statements and genralizations enough to make one sick.



Don't worry Lubo about the context of statements ancestroy or otherwise. As to what you might have wrritten on the blackboard about strings, and what Einstein might have written instead.

An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.-Srinivasa Ramanujan

For me, Ramanujan's statement was really clear. Although, it(math) manifested in the dream, the langauge spoken was the recognition of the source through which mathematics would make itself known to the world. First Principle. If one was listening what was emerging then? Ramanujan might have been so engrossed in math, that such an insight was the key to the open doorway with which quantun grvaity would now not become destitute.

So focused are the many in math that taking the time from all it's calculations, by a quiet strean, or sitting in nature's presence, it all comes together in a "flash of insight."

You have to find the conditions that will speak to theorectical valuation. If such a wide sweeping generalization is levelled at the "mathematical field in question," then, how shall you ever know what this model could have lead one too, in comprehension?

Will we have lacked sufficient knowledge that one might have never had seen it excell beyond the confines of bias and opinion?

Geometrical insight is greater then the axiomization indicated, was from other thoughts of Dirac, and not just the mathematical statements assigned? Such inclination to a quantum perspective and dynamical valuation, of what GR is assigned in curvature, was taken down to the ideas of what signaled the curvature indicators with regards to high energy considerations?

Inverse Fourth Power Law

Quantitative studies of future experiments to be carried out by LHC show that any signatures of missing energy can be used to probe the nature of gravity at small distances. The predicted effects could be accessible to the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab, but the higher energy LHC has the better chance.
These colliders are still under construction, but results also have consequences for "table-top" experiments, being carried out here at Stanford, as well as the University of Washington and the University of Colorado. Here’s the basic idea: imagine there are two extra dimensions on a scale of a millimeter. Next, take two massive particles separated by a meter, at which distance they obviously behave according to the well-known rules of 3-D space. But if you bring them very close, say closer than one millimeter, they become sensitive to the amount of extra space around. At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.

In context of a "complete geometrical process(including microperspectve processes)" how is this possible? It's "motivation" from the gravitatinal collapse, cosmologically is well understood? Analogies in the Laval nozzle, would have been capable of seeing superfuid anomalies occuring that are "counter intuitive" at such extreme temperatures? Yet a channel is provide for the increase in energy values as the output is increased?

Again supefluid states would have to be considered here, and the output generated? What else could it be?

Haines’ explanation theorizes that Z’s magnetic energies create microturbulences that increase the kinetic energies of ions caught in the field’s grip. Already hot, the extra jolt of kinetic energy then produces increased heat, as ions and their accompanying electrons release energy through friction-like viscous mixing even after they should have been exhausted.

Mind you this is from 2001

Stanford's Savas Dimopoulos:
New Dimensions in Theoretical Physics

Our new picture is that the 3-D world is embedded in extra dimensions," says Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. "This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems.

And from the same article. Persepctive has now been changed. We do not discard what has already been built up.

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.

So. What value when looking at the Z Machine with such theoretical speculation?

Awareness of counter intuitive anomalies present in such development of the supefluids? Forces us to consider how "bulk manifestion values" are increased? Where did this "extra energy" come from?

See:

The Z Machine

Visualization: Changing Perspective

History of the Superfluid: New Physics

Nice Picture above.



It is really confusing for me sometimes so I have to revisit the set up, to make sure I have things slotted to the way it is being used to penetrate reductionistic views, that help us understand the new physics that emerges from Gold Ion collisions.

So what is a color glass condensate? According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, when a nucleus travels at near-light (relativistic) speed, it flattens like a pancake in its direction of motion. Also, the high energy of an accelerated nucleus may cause it to spawn a large number of gluons, the particles that hold together its quarks. These factors--relativistic effects and the proliferation of gluons--may transform a spherelike nucleus into a flattened "wall" made mostly of gluons. This wall, 50-1000 times more dense than ordinary nuclei, is the CGC (see Brookhaven page for a letter-by-letter explanation of the CGC's name). How does the gluon glass relate to the much sought quark-gluon plasma? The QGP might get formed when two CGC's collide

So you say that the particles are supported by the HE⁴ Superfluid, then how does that energy leak off into the extra dimensions? Hmmmm. As thread unfolds below? What are these strangelets that are catapulted beyond the collider? Porous induced shell casing?

As well as bringing the accelerator's counter-rotating beams together, LHC insertion magnets also have to separate them after collision. This is the job of dedicated separators, and the US Brookhaven Laboratory is developing superconducting magnets for this purpose. Brookhaven is drawing on its experience of building the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which like the LHC is a superconducting machine. Consequently, these magnets will bear a close resemblance to RHIC's main dipoles. Following a prototyping phase, full-scale manufacture has started at Brookhaven and delivery of the first superconducting separator magnets to CERN is foreseen before the end of the year.

Bose Nova revisited

I wanted to bring this to the surface again for inspection, as this comes out of the work another fellow and I had discussed at length as we shared perspective on the nature and dynamics geometrically inclined.


Accretion Disk

Sometimes, if one does not realized what is governing the thought process, why and how would such things not make some kind of sense. As we move our perceptions ever deeper into the workings of the reductionistic world and find, that these results are being meet in a theoretical sense, as developing well along experimental one too.

As a layman these views are important to me ,more then the cyncism that pervades the supposed debate on model assumption. While the cynic provides no service other then being that. I have learn to see where the patience and developemental attitude requires a more conducive field of opportunity to bring out the best in each of those scientist that very quickly, the desired approach, is being gone after.

So herein lies a little history, and the synoptic event that is holding my thoughts today.

Do the Bosenova

To set a BEC swirling Ketterle's team shone a rotating laser beam on it while holding it in place with strong magnets. The experiment is like "stroking a ping-pong ball with a feather until it starts spinning," muses Ketterle. The surprising thing was that suddenly, a regular array of whirlpools appeared in the BEC. "It was a breathtaking experience when we saw those vortices," recalls Ketterle. Researchers had seen such whirlpools before (in liquid helium and in BECs) but never so many at once. This array of superfluid whirlpools was exactly the kind of storm system astronomers predicted would swirl beneath the iron crust of a neutron star.

Evidence for the swirling depths of neutrons stars is based on the fact that some neutron stars are pulsars - the emit a powerful beam of radiation as they spin - like a cosmic lighthouse. The pulses are very regular but occasionally there is a glitch and a pulse might come slightly too early or too late and it is these glitches that are thought to be due to superfluid vortices hammering into the inside of the neutron star's crust.

Ketterle adds that attractions between atoms in a BEC could parallel the collapse of a neutron star so emulating the distant and massive in the laboratory too. The explosive collapse of a BEC, dubbed a "Bosenova" (pronounced "bose-a-nova") by Wieman releases only a tiny quantity of energy, just enough to raise the temperature of the BEC by 200 billionths of a degree. Supernovae release many times the energy.

So while I had drawn attention to the process afew years ago that we had discussed, it was important that the very idea of a geometrical process that encompass all the information we currently have, has been filed to specific areas for consideration.

While the tidbits placed our perspectives all over the map, and held the idealization of the geometry to Feynman's toy models, a greater implication existed that few of realized as we can read about Dirac and the way in which he sees. While I had not been blessed with such a mathematical mind, it seems my vision of things are quite capable, while speaking about reductionistic proceses intuitive roads that lead to the developmental understanding of the nature of the supefuid. A place in which flatspacetime geometry would allow you to consider properties that ask us to explain what this emergent property might be.

So, if such supersymmetrical idealization was to exist what was this place to say about what began here, or there, in the expression of our universe? Something had to be created that was new to us in our assessment as "new physics." So what was produced? Where did this avenue and funnel allow such an expression that we would look at the bose nova expressing itself, in a model approach.

Whirling atoms dance into physics textbooks

Superconductivity is superfluidity for charged particles instead of atoms. High-temperature superconductivity is not fully understood, but the MIT observations open up opportunities to study the microscopic mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

"Pairing electrons in the same way as our fermionic atoms would result in room-temperature superconductors," Ketterle explained. "It is a long way to go, but room-temperature superconductors would find many real-world applications, from medical diagnostics to energy transport." Superfluid Fermi gas might also help scientists test ideas about other Fermi systems, like spinning neutron stars and the primordial soup of the early universe.

Historical Perspective

Eric Cornell

Carl Wieman

Wolfgang Ketterle

2001 Nobel Prize in Physics

Neutron star

M. Coleman Miller

Today and the New Physics



So now that you see that this process is a interesting one, it is necessary to see how such comparative views on a cosmological scale could have been ever immersed in the microperspective.

This has been my attempt at bringing the place for persepctve into line so that such "new physics" woud have captured the layman's mind. Found the seed bed for new maths, to have created a visionary world that could have arisen from this point on the brane, that such circles, had a greater meaning then one could have ever realized.

What was happening outside of our colliders that we could speak to what was happening inside of the colliders? This is amazing story, as we now see that events happening with high energy particles, have made themself known in our immediate envirnment to have said what can exist here now in such weak field manifestations, that we had graduated from the normal gravity wave perception GR lead us from, and sent us too?

Many Holes?

So now that a cosmological event has captured our mind, the big bang taken us to the first microseconds of our universe, the supersymmetrical view realized, what say we see the possiblility in those new bubbles that arise from Dirac's Sea?

Each hole while existing within the frame work of a supefluid state madeit possible for us to realize that such expressions would have happen at such micro levels that we had been thinking about how we send our measures to such levels? The new physics is what had been strange to our normal way of thinking and now?

It would have been my hope that bringing five different people together in the Cosmic Variance scheme of things, would have created the perfect group, as to bringing persepctive and varied opinion together in perception into the family and said how nice that these different perspectives were really one aspect of the whole picture?

Michael Atiyah and the Geometry

Michael Atiyah:

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should
never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’.

I think it is hard sometimes to keep a global view about all the things that are included in this process, yet at some level, such geometries would have to be explained in relation, between the very small, and the every large.

So how would you take this advancement of all that Michael has talked about and included it in a real world picture? I am trying to answer this but am having difficulties. The words in support of the geometries had to be included in that global perspective.

plato Says:

January 10th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Your censorship of legitmate questions is not a very good practise.

If one had developed in that bulk perspective one would have gained in results, the question would have revealled this but you are are to quick with the button, protecting your point of view.

Has nothing to do with keeping the thread on track.

You'll notice which one he kept?:)

This was posted on Peter Woit's comment section that is censored continously serves no one but those who have drawn the line and any relation to the valuations attributed to bulk perspective. While I have been moving to this feature held in context of experimental basis developed in LHC and RHIC features, what pray tell has the extra dimesional scenario given to us, as we move beyond the idealization that Dirac gave to us for viewing in his equative understandings? Where is this beginning?

It was much more then this and the viewing with which I have become so intrigued that runs through the vein of all our discussions. This is the commonality as I am discovering, that has to have some basis, so that if you talk about "topology" how would this be comparative to our viewings of the universe and the events within it?

Do you see comparative functions as we relay our veiws of the microstate world and how such developements could have lead us all through GR to have come face to face with strangelets?

The bulk perspective is being exemplified, whether you are a Peter Woit or not, who wants to limit these views by casting doubt on any roads that lead beyond GR to the understanding of the inclusion of the microstate valutions from a geometrical consistancy. That comes from, the beginning and end.

If I keep the universe in perspective, am I holding the global perspective and including all that we have learnt. I certainly hope so.

We have to have explanation of the dark matter/energy scenarios do we not?

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations?

While it is never easy for me to follow these things, it is nice that such leads would have been moved forward by others, to help in that regard. At the same time will we have been lead to the interesting feature of what ends and begins in new universe interpretations?

I always hope so from the understanding of what had become cyclical in the detrmination of this universe, considering, that we like to proceed only from the big bang?

I guess when one saids that the quark Gluon plasma is the blackhole, how shall we treat the deviation of symmetry breaking? But as the place in which deviation to negative attributes, would have taken Gr down to the understanding of hyperbolic tendencies?

We added the quantum nature to compactifies statements about how we think the nature of reality is bent extremely? We look for such information in the reality around us and if such mircostate balckhole are dissapative, and very fast, what is left for us to view in the daylight of our reasoning, that we did not understand that nightime follows. The sun has enormous powers in our cosmic realizations?

Where now, Dirac entered the picture?

There are strange things happening with the superfluids? By looking at these, one's intuitive alarms are ringing, because it seems to be counter-intuitive? What do I mean by this?

So lets look back at them and wonder, what feature of the suppersymmetrical universe would have ever had this form to new universe that "the potential" would have been the bubble that formed from quark gluon plasma states, to have said, hey, maybe Dirac's sea of virtual particles has some realistic vitality here in rising from Mothers womb?

You have to understand I am prone to layman misunderstandings so such growth factors have been the attempts to follow the logic of experimentation. What are we left with as we gazed at the reality around us? The experiment mentions that strange quarks are created.

Accretion disks and models of the universe

While such feature would have been the example of geometrical principles throughout its stages of universal developement, the overview would have been a interesting comparison of what emerged in the first few seconds, would have had some comparative models for viewing.

Mark's recent meeting at the AAAs and new material promoted, might have asked us how shall we view such cosmological events that seem strange to us? Similar to what is being discussed here?

So how would such gravitonic concentration be collected at the center of the earth, if we understood, that gravity waves would pass through all things, and yet such accretion disks create more then the solid definitive answers about such singularites adopted. Then the "pea" that uncomfortably leaves an impression on the fabric of spacetime?

So what logic is forming about such geometrical features, that such collapses are included?

Of course I need to understand more here.

Has Speed of Light changed Recently?

You have to remember I am not as well educated as the rest of the leaque connected at Peter Woit's site. But how could one think anything less, then what perception can contribute, as less then what the educated mind might have thought of? If it did not have the scope enlisted by others in consideration cosmology might have expressed, then we might have reduced the value of reducitonism role in how we perceive the beginning of the cosmos?

So what Does Peter Woit say here? I am glad that the support(choir:) moved to Peter's cause for truth and enlightenment, is clarifying itself, instead of the ole rants that we had been witnessed too, in the past.

Understanding the clear disticnctions make's it much easier now, instead of what opportunities might have been past by? Of course I understood that he is quite happy with the life given, makes it all the more reason that the value of opinion will have direction(not hidden causes). Contributions by the the opinions generated, held to a educative process that we all would like to be part of.

Peter Woit:

In general, what I really care about and am willing to invest time in trying to carefully understand, are new physical ideas that explain something about particle theory, or new mathematical ideas that might somehow be useful in better understanding particle theory.

Strings /M theory moved to cosmological thinking because of where it had been?

Life, the cosmos and everything:

Lee Smolin stressed that it is only justifiable if one has a theory that independently predicts the existence of these universes, and that such a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable. He argued that most of the universes should have properties like our own and that this need not be equivalent to requiring the existence of observers.

Smolin's own approach invoked a form of natural selection. He argued that the formation of black holes might generate new universes in which the constants are slightly mutated. In this way, after many generations, the parameter distribution will peak around those values for which black-hole formation is maximized. This proposal involves very speculative physics, since we have no understanding of how the baby universes are born. However, it has the virtue of being testable since one can calculate how many black holes would form if the parameters were different.

So what are Lee Smolin's thoughts today, and one can see where the interactions might have, raised a claerer perception of what falsifiable is meant in context of today's reasonings. Has this changed from 2003?

Lee Smolin:

My impression, if I can say so, is that many cosmologists undervalue the positive successes of CNS. It EXPLAINS otherwise mysterious features of our universe such as the setting of the parameters to make carbon and oxygen abundent-not because of life but because of their role in cooling GMC’s. It also EXPLAINS the hierarchy problem and the scale of the weak interactions-because these can also be understood to be tuned to extremize black hole production. Further, it EXPLAINS two otherwise improbable features of glaxies: why the IMF for star formation is power law and why disk galaxies maintain a steady rate of massive star formation.

So while we are engaged in the thinking of what can be measured from the big bang till now( Sean Carroll has given us a positon to operate from), but having the Poor man's collider introspective, helps us to consider how we may see the developement of particle interaction, as Pierre Auger experiments have reminded us?

Since the COBE discovery, many ground and balloon-based experiments have shown the ripples peak at the degree scale. What CMB experimentalists do is take a power spectrum of the temperature maps, much as you would if you wanted to measure background noise. The angular wavenumber, called a multipole l, of the power spectrum is related to the inverse of the angular scale (l=100 is approximately 1 degree). Recent experiments, noteably the Boomerang and Maxima experiments, have show that the power spectrum exhibits a sharp peak of exactly the right form to be the ringing or acoustic phenomena long awaited by cosmologists:

Then how would we see such changes and views that might of held the mind to variances in the landscape, as hills and valleys, portrayed in our cosmo? Perception between the Earth and the Sun. What shall we say to these values in other places of the cosmo? Will we see the impression of the spacetime fabric much differently then we do with the fabric as we see it now? Some might not like this analogy, but it is useful, as all toys models are useful?

Had we forgotten Wayne Hu so early here, not to have thought before we let this all slip from our fingers, as some superfluid and how we got there, Whose previous existance we had not speculated(what about Dirac), yet we understand the push to the singularity do we not?

"How do you actually make a collapsing universe bounce back? No one ever had a good idea about that,” Albrecht said. “What these guys realized was that if they got their wish for an ekpyrotic universe, then they could have the universe bounce back."

Such gravitational collapse sets the stage for what was initiated from, yet, we would not entertain cyclical models, that would instigate geometrical propensities along side of physics procedures?

So what do we mean when I say that we have pushed the minds eye ever deeper into the world of the Gluonic phases, which we would like so much to validated from such "traversed paths" that such limitations might have then been projected into the cosmo for a better perspective of time? Langangrain valuations alongside of the cosmic string? Which view is better?



When I started to look at the idea of these xtra dimensions, and how these would be manifesting and the experimental attempts at defining such, I recognized Aldeberger with eotvos contributions here, that a few might have understood and seen?

Together now such a perspective might have formed now around perspectve glazes that we might now wonder indeed why such a path taken by Aldeberger might now have been seen in such fine measures?

The Shape of the UNiverse in Omega Values

Having walked through the curvature parameters, in the Friedmann equations while understanding the nature of the universe, I thought would have been very important from the geometrical valuations, that I have been trying to understand. That it might arise in a terminology called quantum geometry, seems a very hard thing to comprehend, yet thinking about CFT measure on the horizon(Bekenstein Bound) is telling us something about the space of the blackhole?

So people have these new ideas about quantum grvaity and some might have choosen monte carlo methods for examination in the regards of quantum gravity perceptive.

Plato:

Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

JUst as one might have asked Max Tegmark what the shape of the universe was, he might of quickly discounted John Baez's soccer ball? Yet little did we know, that such a push by Magueijo might have had some influences? How would you measure such inflationary models?


Plato said:

When I looked at Glast, it seemed a fine way in which to incorporate one more end of the "spectrum" to how we see the cosmo? That we had defined it over this range of possibilties? How could we move further from consideration then, and I fall short in how the probabilties of how we might percieve graviton exchange of information in the bulk could reveal more of that spectrum? A resonance curve?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

One of the ways that has intrigued my inquiring mind, is the way in which I could see how xtra-dimensions might have been allocated to the views of photon interaction? We know the ways in which calorimetric design helps us see how fine the views are encased in the way Onion people work?

I had recognized quite early as I was getting research material together of Smolin's support of Magueijo, had something to do with the way in which he was seeing VSL approaches to indicators of time valuations?

Again, this is quite hard to conclusive drawn understanding, in that such roads lead too, would have instantly said that (speed of light in a vacuum)C never changes? How many good teachers would have chastize their students, to have this held in contrast to todays way we do things when looking at Magueijo?

Magueijo started reading Einstein when he was 11, but he wanted to comprehend the theory using mathematics rather than words. So he read a book by Max Born, which explains relativity in the language of mathematics. He quotes Galileo as having said, "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics."

Let's look at what is being said from a fifth dimensional perspective, and tell me why this will not change the way we see? Why model comprehension has not sparked this foundational change in the way we look at the cosmos and the spacetrime fabric?

Second of Five Lagrangian Equilibrium Points

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense that one image we're getting, is quite different(lensing) from the image that is behind the brane? The idea of brane collision from steinhardt and turok perspective, created this space bewteen the branes, while the image behind this(the other image) is receding?

I am not sure exactly.

Dark matter in the high-redshift cluster CL 0152-1357. Gravitational lensing analysis with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) reveals the complicated dark matter distribution (purple) in unprecedented detail when the Universe was at half its present age. The yellowish galaxies are the visible cluster member galaxies forming a filamentary structure, possibly in the process of merging.
(Jee et al. 2005, Astrophysical Journal)

Not many can see in this abstract way, or have considered how a photon might have travelled? Sure they have understood satellites and the travel through space, but have they consider this in context of CSL lensing? Sean put up a link yesterday that had me seeing how such a travel over distance might have had some photonic strange journies in context of such lensings.



The second of five Lagrangian equilbrium points, approximately 1.5 million kilometers beyond Earth, where the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun balance to keep a satellite at a nearly fixed position relative to Earth.

This picture below really set the final stage for me. Thus simplification has been mounted in how we see such tubes formed within the greater context of the universe and here we have a way of seeing that is new? It helps one to view universe travel and paves the way for roads through such space?

Is it so hard to visualize? Is it so hard not to consider how one should make there way through such space?


Weak Lensing Distorts Universe?

IN order to extend the link to the information supplied in previous article presented by Sean Carroll, Fraser Cain here links us to the following conversation.

Feynman's Path Integrals

While this following comment might seem inappropriate to the content of this post, I place it because of what I see in determination of the langangian methods used to help us see how gravitatonal equilibrium points, speak to how such travels would have been initiated in sum over paths used as Feynman's distributes the actions according to set model held i a cosmological sense I am looking at the the picture above here and the path ways shown.

December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Tony Smith:


As to the time of Feynman soving the QED problem, in 1941 (according to Mehra’s Feynman biography The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford 1994)) Feynman had the inspiration from Dirac’s paper of using the Lagrangian method, which led to Feynman’s 1942 Ph.D. thesis. As to that thesis, Mehra says “… Feynman mentioned that “the problem of the form that relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, take from this point of view, remains unsolved. …”. So, Feynman’s Shelter Island relativistic QED solution was developed after his 1942 Ph.D. thesis.

I had been looking for this relationship and how Feynman’s toys models came into being? Can this be the beginning as you relate?

On Blogging and Experiment

Variation of the Standard Two-Pin-hole "welcher-Weg" Optics Experiment



George R. Welch setting up an optics experiment with graduate student Sophia Ilina

Uncertain Principles :

So, “A Week in the Lab” has come to an end. The experiment itself goes on, of course, but the week of blogging the experiment is at an end.

As physics, it wasn’t terribly successful– the experiment didn’t succeed, after all. As a life-in-science blogging event, I think it worked pretty well. I got to cover a fair range of the experimental physics process, from the basic design stuff, to the nuts-and-bolts assembly, to the prelimanry calibration measurements, to the process of figuring things out from sketchy data, to the frustration of an incomplete experiment. I wouldn’t call it the most successful week of my experimental physics career, but I think I might be happier with how this played out than anything else I’ve done on this blog. I’ll have to look back at it again in a couple of weeks and see if I still feel that way, but at least at this early stage, I like the results.

Plato:

So I thought I would point you to another case. I mean sure there is going to be trials and errors.

I was pointed to the failure of the system of blogging that did not seem up to par with a link given by Sean in regards to experimentation and it's falure? While I see it as a success, presented in the following way.

The Ties that Bind?
John Cramer:)

The Blind Men and The Quantum (1,338k) - The First Hal Clement Memorial Lecture, given at the Boskone 41 Science Fiction Convention, Boston Sheraton Hotel, February 15, 2004. A 50 minute discussion of quantum paradoxes and interpretations, with emphasis on new data (The Afshar Experiment) that appears to falsify the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations, but is consistent with the Transactional Interpretation.

It sort of stays in the family.:)

kathryn cramer

The Transactional Interpretation, which involves a forward/back in time handshake, is one of the few (perhaps the only) interpretation(s) left standing after the Afshar test.

Why is it so important? If scientific perspective had been isolated from the vast resources of people spread throughout such probabilistic valuations in science? In consideration, how would chance have it, that someone could comment on the experimentation? Help the experimentor, and discuss it from a theoretical standpoint how such and such should go? Lubos comment section helps greatly here to assess how this might have gone?

Shahriar S. Afshar

Dear Lubos,

"Therefore we have humiliated Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, the Copenhagen interpretation, complementarity, the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics as well as the rest of physics."

From the content of your response, I can only conclude that you have not fully read my preprint:
www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/

Now that the process has been seen in this context of blogging potential I thought I would add one more for consideration? In terms of what Aldeberger had to say to those on Cosmic Variance in terms of those extra dimensions and the experimental process Evotos is unfolding in this regard.

Decoherence

How to understand this quantum-to-classical transition linking two incompatible descriptions of reality is still a matter of debate among the various interpretations of quantum theory. In any case, one can probe the borderline between the classical and the quantum realm by performing interference experiments with particles of increasing complexity.

Of course I am cocnerned about the determinations of the paticle natures seen in a particular light. These constituent s are part an dparcel of a much larger view from increase entrophy( I always get these things a**backwards), and cooling temperatures?

Decoherence is relevant (or is claimed to be relevant) to a variety of questions ranging from the measurement problem to the arrow of time, and in particular to the question of whether and how the ‘classical world’ may emerge from quantum mechanics. This entry mainly deals with the role of decoherence in relation to the main problems and approaches in the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Of course I am paying attention and listening. :)Of course I want to find my way back to the classical world from where probabilistic valuations reigned. I was acting as a "gathering point" in my quest for a "philosophical design" (not to be confused with ID?). :) Okay, I understand this is not acceptable.

The difference between quantum and classical behaviour is exemplified by the famous “double-slit experiment”, in which photons are fired at a barrier containing two slits, and then allowed to fall on a screen opposite the barrier. Classical particles would pass through (at most) one slit at a time, but photons can pass through both simultaneously. The two waves associated with the photon passing through the two different slits fall in and out of phase with each other at different points on the screen — the phase of these waves being related to the total distance the photon travels from source to screen — so they interfere either constructively or destructively, producing a pattern of light and dark bands.

What motivated such cosmlogical design, as a crunching inevitable to have found the limitations of the energy having found itself turning back? So we do not see this right now and we speculate. this did ont take away from the isolated examples of unfoldment as a cyclcical process between energy and matter did it??

Oh for heaven's sake, where will my ramblings take me next? :)

Lubos Motl:

I would not promote overly technical lecture notes, especially not about things covered in many books. But the interpretation of quantum mechanics in general and decoherence in particular - a subject that belongs both to physics as well as advanced philosophy - is usually not given a sufficient amount of space in the textbooks

Those are strong words [shut up and calculate] for a layman to consider, when he is groping to trying to find his way.

Lecture 23 was pointed out by Lubos Motl in his article for consideration. More was considered from the list contained here.

If such energies were to be amongst the recognition of the quantum world, had we really been that separated from cosmological recognition of what constitued that beginning? Am I suppose to dismiss Weinberg in his first three minutes, for what might have been recognized in the first three seconds?? Remeber I am in the fifth dimension, where temeprature and entropic findings would have found a furthe rvalue to the discussion of what went this way and what that way. The entangling process is very profound.

So in looking back, we do not know where such a thing could begin? I think I understand that from what , although, if such proceses were recognized in the cyclcial nature of the cosmos why would we not entertain the rejuvenation of geometrical propensities to models inherent already in the universe? See the universe as a much "larger process" much different then the scope through which we might have treated each galaxy in it's rotations? Everett? Hmmm....

To map the "invisible" Universe of dark matter and gas expelled during the birth of galaxies: a large-aperture telescope for imaging and spectroscopy of optical and ultraviolet light.

To measure the motions of the hottest and coldest gas around black holes: a radio interferometer in space.

To see the birth of the first black holes and their effect on the formation of galaxies, and to probe the behavior of matter in extreme environments: a very large aperture arc-second X-ray imaging telescope.

To determine the nature and origin of the most energetic particles in the Universe today: a mission to track them through their collisions with the Earth.

I have been troubled indeed by the "orbital mapping" I speculated to the cosmological design, seen as "events" in that cosmo. By such happen stance, such relations seem to spark some wonder about the arrangement, to the fundamental library of that same orbital design. I made this mistake before, and I need to correct it now.

Slow down! "Antimatter?" "Pure energy?" What is this, Star Trek?

But you can see evidence for antimatter in this early bubble chamber photo. The magnetic field in this chamber makes negative particles curl left and positive particles curl right. Many electron-positron pairs appear as if from nowhere, but are in fact from photons, which don't leave a trail. Positrons (anti-electrons) behave just like the electrons but curl in the opposite way because they have the opposite charge. (One such electron-positron pair is highlighted.)

The collider ring as a boson, whose overall contention could have been seen in the total energy involved, and the dispensing to those extra dimensional perspectives within the "natural world" of our settings? Have I misunderstood the values of the Pierre Auger experiment to see better, then we had seen before, not to have seen a topological question about how one would interpret the sphere with one hole, as a donut? What values circles then?

Decoherence represents an extremely fast process for macroscopic objects, since these are interacting with many microscopic objects in their natural environment. The process explains why we tend not to observe quantum behaviour in everyday macroscopic objects since these exist in a bath of air molecules and photons. It also explains why we do see classical fields from the properties of the interaction between matter and radiation.

Angels/demons seem to make there way into view here? Yet in the world of Dirac might he seen the consequence of possible pathways in the construction of the matrix involved and intoduced the i of questionable directives as results in the arrangement of that same matrix?? Feynman took over for sure in his toy models.

Then of course I come across this statement previous and I am back to scratching my head. Oh boy!

You might imagine antimatter as a possible temporary storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than what you get back out of it. For antimatter the loss factors are so enormous that it will never be practical.

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

Hmmmm......more confusion again.:)



What value from such gravitonic perceptions from the modifications if events such as these above are not held to the dynamical nature of the spacetime fabric itself?