Timaeus:Laying the Ground rules on Genesis

You all know that you each have a respective hand on the elephant, and thsoe who would contribute their qunatum mathematics are new comers to what had already existed. As the craftsman Plato, I created the elephant in the thought of the man for this time:)


Genesis Timaeus 27c-34a

Sometimes as you read my dialogues you discover the flavour of individuals who had passed through these readings, and in selected words, highlighted the logic with which they would highlight my approach, and speak about science and the way of it?

Had I known that when I wrote this dialogue that minds like Einstein, or a Hooft would travel through these sections, I might then of assigned the "Craftsman" to different people here, as they developed the models of the world, with which this process speaks too.

Let me pick an example then for you and say that this perspectve I select holds one accountable, and recognizes that in this case it is becoming and perishable. A I highlight a section for you and you read you will understand.



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.

Is not, as John would like us to have believed? The "soccer ball" is dead, but not my Platomic form. It will remain, and live in the hall of the infamous, as a model of the way the world is created? It's underlying nature? It's "to be," as a Shakespearean thought would also have it's "infliction" on my very own words.

But let me first clarify some things here before I loose myself amongst all mmy writings, as it is difficult to retain the mind of individuals in the characters of these dialogues so that the discourse is found relevant in ways of a future, as I have first shown thus.

Timaeus:

First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.

Now let me say that if you are to define the rules of the game, then it will be that each would come from their corner, and from these distinctive positions, bias themselves to what I had always laid first before you.

So the ground rules had been laid long before any of you would speak on the ideas of emergence or not, first principle or not, and the defined shapes or not?

So by these implications you have to then known the logic with which you would approach this discourse with science and all who have used my dialogues :)

Lee Smolin:

-Stick to the issues raised. If someone raises a criticism, whether its done according to your standards of rhetoric or not, just answer the substantial science issue. Don’t waste our time with discussion about anything else. Don’t respond to a criticism on a specific point by changing the subject.

-No personal attacks, absolutely none. If someone has a Ph.D., then they are credentialed. Discuss with them in good faith and with respect.

-Let’s strive to agree on facts before discussing interpretation. Insist on precision and honesty, don’t allow exaggeration, and admit it gracefully when you are wrong or when the evidence does not support something you would like to be true. If someone questions the status of a claim, don’t say “everyone I respect believes X is true.” Say, X is in fact unproven, but there is evidence for it, which is exactly the following….

-Listen carefully to those professional colleagues who read the evidence differently from you, and try to understand sympathetically and in good faith, why they do so.

-Restrain your own communities. Make it clear that it is not acceptable to you when those in your committee insult others or publish or post things that are exaggerated or false. If someone insists on behaving badly, it is up to their community to restrain them. Make it clear that repeatedly treating colleagues disrespectfully in a public forum amounts to professional misconduct. The same is true for repeated cases of knowingly exaggerated or misleading statements in a public forum.

If we can all agree to some basic rules like this I am optimistic that we-and science- will come out better from the debates ahead.

While Lubos has some ideas of his own here, then it seems fair that we should work on these "ground rules" so that each understands that when they step on stage, they had both agreed to the plot that would take hold of science for all to see.

Lubos Motl:

These rules are, first of all, a proposal for a complete and thorough politicization of all of science. The first point is that personal integrity (or scientific integrity) is a very subjective thing that a person simply has or has not. And people will never agree whether certain things have been honest or not.

So if Lee Smolin, sets the "ground rules" while Lubos seeks to develope clarity from position and Clifford the stage, then we would know that your bias's would have to be put aside, in order to proceed. Previous conversations failed, Lubos and Lee:)I have watched your respective positions and felt Lee's feelings on trying, but never really succeeding, to adventure respective positions as one would have put it on stage. The Krauss issue timing is impecabble not for book publicity gain but for how one were to develope the scripts of science in dicussion.

At these meetings of mind, the idealization had been first spelt out in my story of Timaeus, now it is your turn as "to be" the Shakespeare, Einstein or t"hooft would be.

What Lies Beneath

The Bottom up approach?

R.B.Laughlin:

The paper by Senthil et al. [9] is an attempt to address this issue mathematically. It deals specifically with a suspicion many of us have had that quark confinement, one of the most cherished features of the standard model, may be a collective effect that emerges at a phase transition and thus not fundamental at all. The paper is complicated, an unfortunate side effect of the difficulty of the task, for it is not generally possible to deduce emergent phenomena from first principles. The best one can do is postulate them and then demonstrate plausibility by showing that small corrections get smaller as the measurement scale increases. Such convoluted arguments are ripe with opportunities for mistakes, regardless of how careful the authors have been, so the test of emergent universality that counts is always experimental. This, in turn, forces the theory to address not quark confinement itself but an allegory of it one might hope to test in a table-top experiment. The logic is maddeningly indirect, but unfortunately the only approach that is legitimately scientific.

Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.



In the Q<->Q measure, the understanding of this distance in the metric was understandable?


Now this is March of 2000.


What Lies Beneath?



Still as a layman, such general talks need better clarification? If you set the stage from planck length, then how indeed does LQG arise here?

Here's another view.

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

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/witten/oh/10.html

Robert Laughlin:The true origin of these rules is the tendancy of natural systems to organize themselves according to collective principles. Many phenomena in nature are like pointillist paintings. Observing the fine details yields nothing but meaningless fact. To cor rectly understand the painting one must step back and view it as a whole. In this situation a huge number of imperfect details can add up to larger entities of great perfection. We call this effect in the physical world emergence.

http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/lectures/index.htm

Periodic Impingement Orbits:Interference Patterns?

Path through S0(3) Now you must know that the views of this space had association to the >ATLAS, that the paths defined are real intermsof the Calorimetric view, that such appearances are mapped from one state to another by the plate coveringa nd measures of the energy's involved. By taking this covering to symbolize this space? gap we realize how diverse the interactions can be by the implications of the energy used? So we have various idealization here about how the rotational attributes could have been defined in a greater world expression beyond the confines of those same plates

I was looking for the right image to show this rotation and quickly I find Greg Egan's for consideration here, but I had another one as well. When I find it will bring it back for consideration

Shall I call it a real world fantasy that Alice steps into the "mirror world" and we find that exultation of the story again being use to exemplify the world where things enter, and in this strange space/gap, the photon comes out on the otherside?

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 ver pointed to the motivation of these universes coming into being, that it would go through a phase tranasformation relevant to each particle discription? Is this correct? This presented itself iw ay of seeing that stretches the mind imaginations tht I wonder have I indeed gone off the deep end.

Young might have been very happy with this story of Alice in Wonderland, and the wonder of the path integrals, as part of a greater comprehension and revitalization exemplified not just in the feynnmenian toy model production, but of one that enlists a wonderful non-eucldiean world set aside for each and every wonder of entrance and departure into new phase realizations?

It was realized some time ago by Glashow [5] that the orthopositronium system provides one sensitive way to search for the mirror universe. The idea is that small kinetic mixing of the ordinary and mirror photons may exist which would mix ordinary and mirror ortho positronium, leading to maximal ortho positronium - mirror orthopositronium oscillations.

In Albrecht Durer and His Magic Square, I point to what was accomplished in use of an image and artistically rewritten Melencolia II
[frontispiece of thesis, after Dürer 1514]by Prof.dr R.H. Dijkgraaf

Now for me, and I constantly have to remind people that I am junior here in my peceptions, that it would be of my greatest pleasure to expicitly speak to the undestanding of what happens, not only in how we see these lagrange points in space, but also reveal the coming into being of the photon and it's disappearance in a way that involves this complete 720 degree rotation.

I don't know how else to explain what I am seeing other then to find examples and here it would have been most fruitful in looking at what the question mark, where we find the version Melencolia II containing this fundmnantal question about what rises from the standard model and how this is dealt with.

S0 how would define this straight line and measure, but to see it's existnce as a supersymmetrical reality, and as a Calabi Yau model of expression, and find in this same rotational value complete, as a map written, as it is below.

The Photon comes into existance here




The photon is represented here.

So you see this chaos exemplified in a way that the Lorentzian butterfly comes into it's own, that such impngement would find itself relating to each other and trasnferance from state to another? Also, as we look at this, in contrast symmetreical idealization has to have another view reveal itself in the link to the image below where we see this lorentzian butterfly, also mapped in relation to the transferance from one state to another. The Planck Epoch helps here.

How would one mapped unpreditabiltiy in chaos to have seen something grow out of it into a solvable part of some symmetrical views of the gap?

I seemed to have lost the wording that popped into my mind last night. Try as I may, it is one of those times where you repeat it to yourself so that you don't loose it, but being half asleep, this solution was presented for what ever reason.



Is it quite part of what I was looking at, I am not sure. So of course I go looking to see if anything rings a bell?

Einstein's Bubble

If we wanted to understand this motivation and analogy using Einstein's bubble, how could we move this motivation to consider it's first expression, lies wihtin the bath of possibilties?

One needed to see this physics process in its whole harmonious view, to understand that even strings only tells us part of the story. If we disc the supersymmetrical reality, then how will you ever assume that this emergence had to come from some situation. That it is described by recognizing the pre-existing steps that will make this supersymmetrical reality possible for such expressions?

Afshar has done a variation of the standard two-pin-hole "welcher-Weg" optics experiment, in which he demonstrates that wave interference is present even when one is determining through which pinhole a photon passes. This result is in direct contradiction to Neils Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which would require in the quantum world that when one is measuring particle properties [formerly read "measuring quantum properties" -KC], all wave interference phenomena must vanish. Afshar's trick is to find the location of the minimum points of wave interference, place one or more wires at these minimum points, and observe how much light is intercepted when one is determining the pinhole through which the photons passed.

I just wanted to add the following little blurb to show that the idea used here by John Cramer is one that many people like to use when we come to describing things if they contain others ways of describing?


Nathan Seiberg, a colleague of Witten's at the IAS, uses the analogy of blind men examining an elephant to explain the course of string theory until 1995. "One describes touching a leg, one describes touching a trunk, another describes the ears," he says. "They come up with different descriptions but they don't see the big picture. There is only one elephant and they describe different parts of it."The Guardian

So in this context John Cramer takes us through some information for consideration. This is also in context of the Welcher Weg experiment that is introduced on Lubos's site. Had he some search function I am sure he can take us directly to his continue discourse on this topic to help us orientate a better view of the issues. A little nudge again, like he's going to listen to what I have to say, eh?:)


The Blind Men and the Quantum: Adding Vision to the Quantum World

Question (Albert Einstein):

If a photon is detected at Detector A, how does the photon’s wave function Y at the location of Detectors B & C know that it should vanish?

Situation: A photon is emitted from an isotropic source. Its spherical wave function Y expands like an inflating bubble. It reaches a detector, and the Y bubble “pops” and disappears.

The Cosmic String Visited Again and again......

I am not sure if this bothers others, but when I close a link, I do not like the whole web site to shut down so that I have to go to a link and restablish contact. So what I do is offer a target=_blank to my html, so that it adds a open window that can be closed, and leave you with the site in question. So any thoughts on this you html buffs?

1. Here Previously
2.Here again
3.I'm adding this link so that the views of Cosmic string are held in context of what Emergence might mean?

Circles wihtin circles, and Sklar interpretation is posted throughout this site. A deeper look into the "manifestation point( let's call it emergence in this thread)" of blackhole consideration would ask, okay, at the supersymmeticla level , what is this "point" that is to emerge?

See, when you take this vision of the three brane collapsing in context of gravitatinal collpase, you are given perspective geometrically/topologically that any abstract mind would have missed, had they not understood the physics involved, is also tied to these views.



Now the interesting thing to me is, if you move your perspective to the blackhole for a minute here you learn to question what value might be attained from emssion standards that would help you orientate the views to a much more dynamical version of the cosmos?

What is the ideal supersymmetical view that would arise from 1 brane, and could have manifested from three brane collapse? Now you kow I am working backwards here, just to point to the source of the cosmic string, so that what ever it's manifestation, I am quick to think of a vast network of energy very spread out all of a sudden igniting some lightning strike across the universe? Thinking of a universe in a box here helps sometimes, but the move to ballooning features, you need to understand this progression through universal manifestation from those bubbling universes?

So there are two views here, that ask whether the constructive mode of the current universe, arising from this cosmic string, has painted a nice little framework for topological considertaions, that we could now see were the micro views of blackhole emissions are held as standard?

Emergence= Phase Transitions of Symmetry?

Witten said:

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

Part of the difficulty was realizing that the end result of a current depiction of the universe, and the reality around us now, had led us to assumption discrete manifestations of a earlier prospective universe. From that early universe, until now.

In 1877 Boltzmann used statistical ideas to gain valuable insight into the meaning of entropy. He realized that entropy could be thought of as a measure of disorder, and that the second law of thermodynamics expressed the fact that disorder tends to increase. You have probably noticed this tendency in everyday life! However, you might also think that you have the power to step in, rearrange things a bit, and restore order. For example, you might decide to tidy up your wardrobe. Would this lead to a decrease in disorder, and hence a decrease in entropy? Actually, it would not. This is because there are inevitable side-effects: whilst sorting out your clothes, you will be breathing, metabolizing and warming your surroundings. When everything has been taken into account, the total disorder (as measured by the entropy) will have increased, in spite of the admirable state of order in your wardrobe. The second law of thermodynamics is relentless. The total entropy and the total disorder are overwhelmingly unlikely to decrease

Now the apparent contradiction is to understand that when the views are taken to those small spaces, reductionistic features of a discrete nature have forced us to consider the building blocks of matter, but at the same time, something else makes it's way into our views that would have been missed had you not realized that the space contains a lot of energy?

To build this symmetrical and simple model of elegance, you needed some model, some framework in which to consider the distant measure here would be ultimately derived from the blackhole and it's dynamics? The simple solution would help you recognize that any massless particle emitted from this state, would automatically signal the closest source of consideration that any of us could have imagined.

Even Smolin, recognized the Glast determinations. Why I have said, that Smolin could not have gotten any closer then what is surmised from the origination of emission from the blackhole consideration?

Organization of Matter: The Theory of Everything

I looked at Sean Carroll's blog on the thread on emergence and for me first principle was a dirty word to Robert Laughlin, and for many of us, the forms are the resulting framework of the organization of matter states, versus reductionistic attempts leading to the first building blocks of matter?

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

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

Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline, doubting the existence of black holes.

It is rather obvious that one does not need to prove the existence of sound in a solid, for it follows from the existence of elastic moduli at long length scales, which in turn follows from the spontaneous breaking of translational and rotational symmetry characteristic of the crystalline state [12]. Conversely, one therefore learns nothing about the atomic structure of a crystalline solid by measuring its acoustics Robert Laughlin

So such a view of Robert Laughlin does not concern itself with what took place at the very beginning of the universe, but rather opposed to the higg's field, and the organizational process of matter, we might see of the professor crossing the room, there is real manifestation of the universe in the now. So I see where Professor Laughlin polarities are much different then high energy particle people?

Complexity changes these views, from a reductionistic view, as in particle identification, to one of a expansionary nature, when looking at our universe now?

Robert Laughlin is very helpful in showing us the complexity issue ballooning into a real world measure, of solid state and formative issues. But no where is this idealization asking what the basis of this existence is? Does it care?

The Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter (ICAM) is a University of California multicampus research project devoted to revealing the principles by which matter, both living and inanimate, organizes itself to reveal surprising, emergent behavior.

Certain assumptions make this universe and our perceptions of it, point to a reality. But in order to leave the confines of constructive formations and these ballooning attributes of universal expansionism, where are the seeds of its beginnings? Does it matter?

Emergent Matter Project
There is a huge potential public interest in learning about the frontier that connects inanimate matter, via quantum emergent properties such as magnetism, high temperature superconductivity, and quantum criticality, to the worlds of nanophysics and ultimately to biology and life itself.

What Lies Beneath?

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

***

See:

"Lego Block" Galaxies in Early Universe

The Emergence of Time, What Lies Beneath?

The intuitive classical space-time picture breaks down in quantum gravity, which makes a comparison and the development of semiclassical techniques quite complicated.

Taken in context of how supersymmetrical levels could have ever been reached, is really a wonderful thnng to consider. If singularities were to be devised in methods that would experiementally bring forth blackholes at the microstates. Then what value is derived from learning about high energy and the levels we must go through to speak about these singularities?

From classical discritpion of GR to the understanding that supergravity could have ever been devised as a method to live in supersymmetrical worlds, would have been a challenge indeed, and we might ask where would time would begin, and what was below time?

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

by Stephen Hawking

It becomes very difficult then for anyone to accept that Robert Laughlin might have "wondered" about about condensed matter physics to have wonder what the building blocks shall be at such levels? That he might have wanted to stay to discrete structures for explanations as far as he could tell experimentally?:)


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

You see this is okay. That one can direct their attention to such infrastructures to ask, what the ultimate building block shall be, that we constantly refocus our mind to the finer things(abstract mathematical forays into these fine building blocks), only to find, we have progress well into the cosmological view, of such microstates?

"The path integral is taken over metrics of all possible topologies, that fit in between the surfaces. There is the trivial topology, the initial surface, cross the time interval. Then there are the non trivial topologies, all the other possible topologies. The trivial topology can be foliated by a family of surfaces of constant time. The path integral over all metrics with trivial topology, can be treated canonically by time slicing. In other words, the time evolution
(including gravity) will be generated by a Hamiltonian. This will give a unitary mapping from the initial surface, to the final.
"

But to follow is this what Peter Woit thinks?

Peter Woit said--?His argument is in Euclidean quantum gravity, which he describes as "the only sane way to do quantum gravity non-perturbatively", something which some might disagree with. What he seems to be arguing is that, while it is true you get information loss in the path integral over metrics on a fixed non-trivial black hole topology, you really need to sum over all topologies. When you do this you get unitary evolution from the trivial (no black hole) topology and the non-trivial topologies give contributions that are independent of the initial state and don't contribute to the initial-final state amplitude.

I guess what this means is that he is claiming that, sure, if you knew you really had a black hole, then there would be a problem with unitarity, but in quantum gravity you don't ever really know that you have a black hole, you also have to take into account the amplitude for not actually having one and when you properly do this the unitarity problem goes away.

You must accept my humble apologies, but to have been given these directions(quotes analogies in reference links and statements, from both Lubos Motl and Peter Woit, I wonder about the difference in their interpretations of the mathematics they are using? Are they so fundamntally at odds with each other, that they do not realize that they are working very close in their idealizations?

Inverse Fourth Power Law

By moving our perceptions to fifth dimenisonal views of Kaluza and KLein, I looked at methods that would help me explain that strange mathematical world that I had been lead too geometrically. If such a bulk existed, then how would we percieve scalable features of the energy distributed within the cosmo?

The angular movements needed to signal the presence of additional dimensions are incredibly small — just a millionth of a degree. In February, Adelberger and Heckel reported that they could find no evidence for extra dimensions over length scales down to 0.2 millimetres (ref. 11). But the quest goes on. The researchers are now designing an improved instrument to probe the existence of extra dimensions below 0.1 mm. Other physicists, such as John Price of the University of Colorado and Aharon Kapitulnik of Stanford University in California, are attempting to measure the gravitational influence on small test masses of tiny oscillating levers.

In previous posts I have outline the emergence and understanding of hyperdimensional realities that we were lead too. Our early forbearers(scientifically and artistic embued with vision) as they moved through the geometrical tendencies, that if followed , made me wonder about that this strange mathematical world. How would we describe it, and how would it make sense?

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.

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.

As you look at the issue of two points(introduction to hyperdimensional realites of quark confinement as a example), it is well understood, by this point that such emergence had to be geometriclaly consistent on many levels. That such royal roads leading too, culminate in some realistic measure? In that mathematical realm, we had left off, and in recognition of the fifth postulate of euclid. By acceptance and creation of this extra dimension, it was well apparent, that such tendencies were developing along side with the physics as well.

But we had to determine where this mathematical realm had taken us, in terms of measure? We are quckly reminded of the place in which such measures become the constant rallying point around important questions of these views.



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

It wasn't a game anymore, that we did not suspect that reductionism might have taken us as far as the energy we could produce could take us? So we had to realize there was limitations to what we could percieve at such microscopic levels.

High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:

To see What?

The structure of matter

(atoms/nuclei/nucleons/quarks)

Faced by these limitations and newly founded conceptual views based on the quantum mechanical discription of spacetime as strings, how would we be able to look at the cosmos with such expectancy? To know, that the views energetically described, would allow further developement of the theoretcial positons now faced with in those same reductionistic views?

What has happened as a result of considering the GR perspective of blackholes, that we had now assigned it relevance of views in cosmological considerations? Such joining of quantum mechanical views and GR, lead us to consider the sigificance of these same events on a cosmological scale. This view, had to be consistent, geometrically lead too?

If we discover the Planck scale near the TeV scale, this will represent the most profound discovery in physics in a century, and black hole production will be the most spectacular evidence of that new discovery