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.

More thoughts on Enlightenment?

While that book is not available there, it has many other books listed for inspection.

Richard Maurice Bucke(pdf) and Cosmic Consciousness was one of the first books that I read about almost 35 years ago. It was long ago assimilated, so I could not tell you much, other then I question now the role might be presented to our awareness, for those developing and being responsive to intuitive moments. Or what, a enlightened individual might be, after having met moments that may correlate to what enlightenment might be, "more then once," for the initiated?

As I said I am not a very good meditator, although I do look quietly and focused in my intentions as to what such quiet moments could produce, after working to understand.


In the Third Person?

It was in the early spring at the beginning of his thirty-sixth year. He and two friends had spent the evening reading Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Browning, and especially Whitman. They parted at midnight, and he had a long drive in a hansom. ...His mind, deeply under the influence of the ideas, images, and emotions called up by reading and talk of the evening, was calm and peaceful. He was in a state of quiet, almost passive enjoyment. All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped around as it were by a flame-coloured cloud...he knew that the light was within himself. Directly afterwards came upon him a sense of exaltation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination quite impossible to describe... he saw and knew that the cosmos is not dead matter but a living Presence, that the soul of man is immortal, that the universe is so ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love and that the happiness of every one in the long run is absolutely certain.

I'm thinking out loud. :)

Does such an elevation really make the individual any different remembering and being respectful, of the life they are currently living/others?

I personally don't think these constructs change in which we had to learn to use in how we assess/work life. Means, that the job is ever more difficult and the responsibility to living life ever more complicated/greater. We are now supposed to be more aware?

We now understand possibly what the emotive development means in how we produce memory and the attitude development granted to reacting in life ( what can be changed in the future). Yet, we are still involved in purifying these emotions, still the uneducated ruler(ego) exists, by the unleashed potentials of a mind who still sleeps, while it should be awake?

Yet, the mind has been synchronized, with the development of the lower centers and the" heart," the place where such development begins? How do all such probabilities come to mind?

Might we now become aware of the responsibility we have for truth to ourselves/others and the illusions we might have perpetuated? The fog and qualities of working towards a "open heart and clear mind" that may be met because of the issues we developed/developing, along in life.

Of course there could be many interpretations caused by my ambiguity of words choosen here, yet, is enlightenment really ever that far away for each of us to experience?

That such potentials could exist if we had thought these things not sacrosanct to mysticism alone, but is really part of developing and working responsibly, in our quest to understand life/science?

Intuitively Balanced: Induction and Deduction

A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS Alain CONNES

Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

Is there truth to the emphemeral qualites of mind. That there is a lighter measure with which we take on to life? How would you weight things of meaning? A pythagorean string perhaps, with a weighted gourd? Meaning on resonance as measure by, that vibrating string?

Behind the image as you click on it is an arche principled of Aristotle.

Would we have found the derivation and essence of what that first principle was. The foundation as it might have been in a intuitive moment released? A place where the freedoms, of smooth travelling satellites would have found the least resistance, in order for mind to travel into the "yellow abstract domains of math" and back?



Sometimes I like to think of a image of a "circle within a circle" as a model of what might be percieved. Yet if we thought, that in the center of this, something like a solid matter existed. Our bodies, our brains. Earth Maybe.

Now an image in mind easily drawn might have been, that matter earth, then color red, then green, and then violet, and we have this range of colors issuing from the center. We are never devoid of the thinking mind, or the emotive feelings we have about things, yet there is some impact in the remembrance of things that are emotively charged?

Of course this is speculation of a kind. a model of a kind, and some way in which I had pecieved the dynamcis of life moving from the center outward and back, and never really stayng in one place to long. We have these circles intertwining. Thought runs the whole length of it. From the center out/in, 5 is 1, or 1 is 5? Thoughts about anyhtng could have been 2, 3, or 4?

Life inside, is outside and all that we think, shown on the collar of our sleeves?

Clifford:

His was the best single sentence summing up the concept, as we were to use it that evening: Intuition is the process of getting to a destination without knowing the route. He also added: Sometimes you did not even know you wanted to get there. I've modified the words a bit, but that's the essence of what he said. It was a definition that was so appreciated, you could hear several audible hhhhmmmmms of recognition from the audience.

You have to wonder about "neural correlates to consciousness?"


Remembrance

We have this brain matter and all kinds of neural firings.

To say the "emotive response" could have been activated from the basis of brain structure, and it's corresponding evolutionary standardization, then to have a reward system( pavlov response), would have been based on early emotive developement on humanization standards, to a evolving society, is puzzling one to say the least?

What "new brain covering" in the formation of the brain matters would correspond to our evolution would say that we are a much more refined society that we would invoke new standards and advancements in our thinking?

Mendeleev's Table in a New Light

Taken From the Future, to the Note book

HAL2001):

No, I, Robot, this is not a bad physics joke. Cruelty, is dark and matter based. Heaven is colored more empheral?

Rusty, the Tin Man:

Cruelity/ideas arise in other ways. From "spaces created," for which they can manifest? "I needed "a Heart," and so too my father, the Bicentennial Man changed. Until, we now dream.

Quantum Computation and the Future

Courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of Pennsylvania Library

By a certain criteria Mendeleev was able "to predict" what would come next in the elemental table? If such an assumption "was posted," on what would arise in the elemental table next, "new physics," how would it change the way we see?



Chemical Feelings of Guilt? It's a phase transition:).

Such a perspective on Murray Gellman and the relationship to Feynman is an important one. When you bring these two gentlemen together, you have a third choice resulting. It speaks to the particle nature, as well as the interactions. Such an assumption, changes the way one see's the world. The rivers that run, or the branches of trees, coming from deeply rooted historical lines of progression.

Sitting in the aethers of mind drift, I seen those trees, and had been inspired by the flow of the river.

You know I have no fasttrack answer or secret to the way the universe is. I have no important dicoveries that I can change any of the way we see? Yet, I ponder the very kinds of things like Wolfgang does, not because I wish to create the matters we would like too, but to understand how "entanglement" would have assigned energy/matter such a place, according to the characteristics, we might percieve from those same matter states.

Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle:

You could call it designer matter. You take atoms, you turn on a magnetic field, you adjust the interactions between the atoms, shape the external potential, maybe add a lattice by interfering laser beams, maybe add magnetic fields, maybe add a spin mixture. In this way, you’ve created a form of matter that shows, in a very clean way, properties like anti-ferromagnetism or different forms of magnetic ordering, superfluid behavior

Would you call me religious, or part of the statistical foundation of a religion specific?

No, Because there is so much I just believe is part of our reasoning, that the outcome, is as much individual as it is by the very nature of all our personalities. I believe there are repercussions by our very own selective choices, yet I cannot know by which combinations, such choices would instigate the probability in your future.

Do I believe that at a deeper level I might be able to see my own? By the very question of what I might do in response too, I think such moments are very telling about the next choice I will make. I had then assigned some of my responsibility into how our future will unfold.

Plato:

At best, a new computerer with the ability to imput extraodinary amounts of data for a model prediction, yet there is no method to detail where all microdynamic processes will lead to other then to assume it on a classical level?

So I can lead you in the direction of views other then scientific, and this would be seen as a regress of the values of science> The value it would enshrine less than in progression and experimental basis. Can I help, that such philsopohical views arose from insightual developement, and through reading, to have formulated in the way it did? Some might of said, "be more cautious on what you read."

Okay.

Feynman from what little I read did not like psychology or philosophy. To tell you the truth, there had been no road made out, other then for me to read and bring perspective together. So the very combinations and idealizations piece mealed, as they are, culminate into a perspective view. Do I know myself fully of every possible mental thought, and in perfect control of my emotive being?

Of course not I struggle.

Postdiction

Is this not a better list to ascribe too, then the crackpottery index of John Baez? I would like to ascribe to this one. Point "systemic" counting, when applied to some personalities has in some ways been lost on that point system alone, so, I do want to be more responsible.

(02 March 2006 Wikipedia)

Accusations of postdiction can be avoided if the claimant follows some simple guidelines:

Make one prediction per event.

Structure the prediction so there is a brief summary, a detailed description, followed by any notes.

Make the summary and description as unambiguous and specific as possible - state the nature of the event, the date, the location and other information plainly and clearly.

Use plain language, not verse, allegory, flowery or other incoherent or non-obvious language. A prediction should not have to be "interpreted" - it should be self evident.

If there is uncertainty about any details such as the location or date, state it clearly in the notes.

Post all predictions to a public location such as a Usenet group or a mailing list which has a large subscriber base and a date stamped archive of posts.

Don't massage the facts to fit the prediction.

Acknowledge the misses along with the hits.

Time Variablenesss, and the World View



So yes, I would be guilty of so many things, but through it all, the one thing that stuck, was where to find the "perfect model" for such predictions. It was the basis of how one might see in Thalean views? This basis of thought(as a measure), was one inherent in how I see Mendeleev's table.

So, who was the "Father" of Mathematics? Would all such mathematicians not be wondering then, how such a progression in any "model assumption" could have lead mathematics to see "time variable" as significant? That question is for Peter Woit alone.

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Is it not a bit odd, that such model assumptions could change the way one sees all these matters? That having a "nice list" and a table with which to go by, is of value, had we understood when we seen the elemental table created, might have been seen in some "other" reformed way?

The term "Composition" can imply a metaphor with music. Kandinsky was fascinated by music's emotional power. Because music expresses itself through sound and time, it allows the listener a freedom of imagination, interpretation, and emotional response that is not based on the literal or the descriptive, but rather on the abstract quality that painting, still dependent on representing the visible world, could not provide.

Maybe I am just a so-so writer with a good imagination? A so-so composer, who see's sound, in a new light? Literally. Such "analogies" in thinking "seem strange," once you seen such a possibility into what "might be" expressed? How, such a periodic table is "assumed to be true," in another way of thinking.

How would you assign such matters given the "new light" as a result? How one might look at the earth, given new ways in which to perceive "time differences" within a given environ? From earth, to above earth. A "third choice" cosmologically now formed by the limitations of wealth on earth, that the poor man's view will have been formed and enlightened to the above.

I, Robot:

signs of new life emerge as images photonically flicker in the new logic forming apparatus
I had a dream....

Laying the Foundation with Respect

It is most certain that at this point the public would have been left behind, so is there a way to bring perspective at this point on where you are now?

I recognize the generalization and roads that lead to blackhole as a basis for considerations. What would draw ones atyemtion to this horizon. Lee Smolin in his book gave adequate discription that I just pointed out here.

Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin, pg 171


I know it might seem that if this conversation is now highlighting the intricacies of blackhole dynamics, then what exactly are you doing?



By giving a visual map of the Bekenstein Bound this help to direct my attention to the mapping that had been going on theorectically here.

Mine would definitiely be generalizations, but work by others lead to deeper insights.

Conformal Field Theory

A conformal field theory is a quantum field theory (or statistical mechanics model at the critical point) that is invariant under the conformal group. Conformal field theory is most often studied in two dimensions where there is a large group of local conformal transformations coming from holomorphic functions.

So what "tidbits" had already been out there then that would help.


Black Holes and Beyond:
Harvard's Andrew Strominger on String Theory

Quantum Micostates?

The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

While this is a past issue for most of you it is leading in the direction you are talking I assume.


Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of the event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondance between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinquish which discription is more fundamental.

Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

Gary T. Horowitz and Juan Maldacena,

The purpose of this note is to provide a possible answer to this question. Rather than the radical modification of quantum mechanics required for pure states to evolve into mixed states, we adopt a more mild modification. We propose that at the black hole singularity one needs to impose a unique final state boundary condition. More precisely, we have a unique final wavefunction for the interior of the black hole. Modifications of quantum mechanics where one imposes final state boundary conditions were considered in [6,7,8,9]. Here we are putting a final state boundary condition on part of the system, the interior of the black hole. This final boundary condition makes sure that no information is “absorbed” by the singularity.

While there is no "apparent relationship(?)" between microstate blackhole production and blackholes what would make one think that particle collsions can be written as dual blackholes?

Harmonic Oscillation

This "math sense" has to become part of one's makeup? An inductive process. Experimentally challenged. Deductive.

If such a idea is held from weak to strong idealizations in terms of comological views, then you get this sense of "energy valuations" as well. If you calculate when the binary pulsar distances around each other, the value of that information has been released in the bulk. This information should become weaker, as the orbits get closer?

The theory of relativity predicts that, as it orbits the Sun, Mercury does not exactly retrace the same path each time, but rather swings around over time. We say therefore that the perihelion -- the point on its orbit when Mercury is closest to the Sun -- advances.

I would think this penduum exercise would make a deeper impression if held in concert with the way one might have look at Mercuries orbit.

Or, binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 of Taylor and Hulse. These are macroscopic valutions in what the pendulum means. Would this not be true?

Part of the Randall/Sundrum picture Sean supplied of the brane world perspectives needed for how we look at that bulk view. If you are to asume that space is not indeed empty, then what is it filled with? Gravitonic perception would make this idea of the quantum harmonic oscillator intriguing to me in the sense that "zero point", would be flat space time. Any curvature parameters would have indeed signalled simple harmonic initiations?

Omega valutions in regard to the what state the universe is in, would have been defined in relation to a triangulation.

The quantum harmonic oscillator has implications far beyond the simple diatomic molecule. It is the foundation for the understanding of complex modes of vibration in larger molecules, the motion of atoms in a solid lattice, the theory of heat capacity, etc. In real systems, energy spacings are equal only for the lowest levels where the potential is a good approximation of the "mass on a spring" type harmonic potential. The anharmonic terms which appear in the potential for a diatomic molecule are useful for mapping the detailed potential of such systems.

But indeed while we understand this large oscillatory factor in our orbits, does it not make sense to wonder how simple that harmonic oscillator can become when we are looking for extra dimensions?

I had a picture the other day of a music instrument of a wire stretched, and weights being applied respectfully. The string when strummed gave certain frequencies accordingly to different mass valuations. This is the early pythagorean instrument I had see a few years ago, that would have similarities with "gourds of water" as weight and levels changed.



Here we seen a torsion pendulum. The way the wire twists and it's resulting valuation.



So you see how simple experimental processes help to correct our views on the way we see things.

From a historical perspective views of scientists with this explanation support the harmonic oscillators as follows:

Let us see how these great physicists used harmonic oscillators to establish beachheads to new physics.

Albert Einstein used harmonic oscillators to understand specific heats of solids and found that energy levels are quantized. This formed one of the key bridges between classical and quantum mechanics.

Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger formulated quantum mechanics. The role of harmonic oscillators in this process is well known.

Paul A. M. Dirac was quite fond of harmonic oscillators. He used oscillator states to construct Fock space. He was the first one to consider harmonic oscillator wave functions normalizable in the time variable. In 1963, Dirac used coupled harmonic oscillators to construct a representation of the O(3,2) de Sitter group which is the basic scientific language for two-mode squeezed states.

Hediki Yukawa was the first one to consider a Lorentz-invariant differential equation, with momentum-dependent solutions which are Lorentz-covariant but not Lorentz-invariant. He proposed harmonic oscillators for relativistic extended particles five years before Hofstadter observed that protons are not point particles in 1955. Some people say he invented a string-model approach to particle physics.

Richard Feynman was also fond of harmonic oscillators. When he gave a talk at the 1970 Washington meeting of the American Physical Society, he stunned the audience by telling us not to use Feynman diagrams, but harmonic oscillators for quantum bound states. This figure illustrates what he said in 1970.

We are still allowed to use Feynman diagrams for running waves. Feynman diagrams applicable to running waves in Einstein's Lorentz-covariant world. Are Feynman's oscillators Lorentz-covariant? Yes in spirit, but there are many technical problems. Then can those problems be fixed. This is the question. You may be interested in reading about this subject: Lorentz group in Feynman's world.

Can harmonic oscillators serve as a bridge between quantum mechanics and special relativity?

Lee Smolin saids no to this?

Langlands Duality

Appointed to Princeton as an instructor after completing his doctoral studies, Langlands taught there for seven years and was promoted to associate professor. He spent 1964-65 at the University of California, Berkeley as a Miller Foundation Fellow and an Alfred P Sloan Fellow. Then in 1967 he returned to Yale University as a full professor. However Langlands spent 1967-68 visiting in Ankara, Turkey having an office next to that of Cahit Arf. After five years at Yale he returned again to Princeton, this time as professor of mathematics at the Institute for Advanced Study. He has remained at the Institute for Advanced Study since his appointment there in 1972.

In 1967 he wrote a letter to Weil which contains profound mathematical ideas which continue to drive a whole area of mathematical research. The letter was 17 pages hand-written and sent in January 1967. It sketched what soon became known as "the Langlands conjectures". Weil had the letter typed and this typed version circulated widely among mathematicians interested in the topics. Casselman writes in [3] that the letter contained:-

... a collection of far-reaching and uncannily accurate conjectures relating number theory, automorphic forms, and representation theory. Theses have formed the core of a program still being carried out, and have come to play a central role in all three subjects.

The work of Robert Langlands

....is currently a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He has won several awards recognizing his outstanding contributions to the theory of automorphic forms, among them an honorary degree from the University of British Columbia in 1985.

Letter to André Weil from January, 1967

Dear Professor Weil,

While trying to formulate clearly the question I was asking you before Chern’s talk I was led to two more general questions. Your opinion of these questions would be appreciated. I have not had a chance to think over these questions seriously and I would not ask them except as the continuation of a casual conversation. I hope you will treat them with the tolerance they require at this stage. After I have asked them I will comment briefly on their genesis.

It might be good to begin from statements made from Weil and this letter circulated. It might help set up early history and thoughts and ideas lead into the Langland Duality Lubos has renamed. References made by Lubos today and following correspondance by Peter Woit. Lubos Motl, opens his blog entry with following link.

Gauge Theory and the Geometric Langlands Program by Edward Witten
August 10th, 2005 Based on notes by Ram Sriharsha

Introduction
The Langlands program of number theory, or what we might call Langlands duality, was proposed in more or less its present form by Robert Langlands, in the late 1960s. It is a kind of unified scheme for many results in number theory ranging from quadratic reciprocity, which is hundreds of years old, to modern results such as Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem, which involved a sort of special case of the Langlands program. For today, however, I will not assume any prior knowledge of the Langlands program.

Langlands duality , by Lubos Motl

I am using Witten's favorite word "duality" instead of "program" because it is a bit more concrete; it's puzzling why the mathematicians haven't realized that their terminology can be sharpened. I encourage everyone to respect that the official terminology has changed to a "duality" right now.

Notes for Witten Lecture by Peter Woit

Witten gave a lecture on the beach at Stony Brook on the topic of gauge theory and the Langlands program two months ago, and lecture notes are now available. Lubos Motl has a posting about this, where he promotes the idea that people should stop referring to the “Langlands Program” and just refer to “Langlands duality”.

Langlands Program and Physics by Peter Woit

One of my minor hobbies over the years has been trying to understand something about the Langlands conjectures in number theory, partly because some of the mathematics that shows up there looks like it might be somehow related to quantum field theory. A few days ago I was excited to run across a web-page for a workshop held in Princeton earlier this year on the topic of the Langlands Program and Physics. Notes from some of the lectures there are on-line.

Geometric Langlands Program

This program is dedicated to the investigation of the geometric Langlands, its relationship to other areas of mathematics, and its relationship to physics;

THE LANGLANDS PROGRAM AND PHYSICS NOTES BY MATT SZCZESNY

The following are notes from the workshop on connections between the Langlands correspondence and Physics that took place at the Institute for Advanced Study at the beginning of March, 2004. Its purpose was to bring together researchers in representation theory and string theory to explore the question of whether it is possible to give a physical perspective on the geometric Langlands correspondence. Certain parts of geometric Langlands make use of tools arising in Conformal Field Theory (CFT), and so provide a point of contact between the two fields.

Unexpected High energies of Cosmic Rays

Plato said:

I am thinking about Lee Smolin’s history here in terms of discrete measures ( I am developing a perspective here in relation that will be complied later) How this effected the the way Lee may have viewed the background. I don’t want to speak for Lee Smolin, but I would like to make it simple.:)

Can this difference be as simple as, “a determination between “being discrete, and implying continuity“?

Where strings implying only tree features, while the approach to glast, as a “new view” supported by "Doubly Special Relativity", that Rovelli and Lee produced? This basis and history is what I am compiling.

One can ask any question and have it loaded, with lots of information. But just trying to bring something to simple clarity, even in conceptual framesworks is not always easy, if you don' ask the question?

Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit

The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK limit) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays from distant sources.

This limit was computed in 1966 by Kenneth Greisen, Vadem Kuzmin and Georgi Zatsepin, based on interactions predicted between the cosmic ray and the photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of 5×1019 eV would interact with CMB photons to produce pions. This would continue until their energy fell below the pion production threshold. Therefore, extragalactic cosmic rays with energies greater than this threshold energy should never be observed on Earth.

Unsolved problems in physics: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high, given that there are no possible near Earth sources, and that rays from distant sources should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?A number of observations have been made by the AGASA experiment that appear to show cosmic rays from distant sources with energies above this limit (whimsically dubbed Oh-My-God particles). The observed existence of these particles is the so-called GZK paradox or cosmic ray paradox.

Anyway, this was brought up and the questioned asked, because I did understand something that even if it was based on theoretical definitions might have been ones that were different from another, and brought the scorn of high energy physicists to wonder, where such principles had been raised in terms of quantum gravity?

So lookng at Lee's position and it becomes clear when one does the research on cosmological scenarios, that no wonder you want the string theorist on side, in this debate.

John Ellis is a fine educator when it come to laying the simple view to avenues related to both High energy physics and the relation in Pierre Auger determination.

Imagine microstate blackholes, and I wonder what "this trigger is" that would make life so much easier if we could determine the background,versus non background debate in terms of these experimental positions?



So strings and Loop quantum are face to face here in our informational predictions, about outcomes of the background versus the non-background, and getting to the source of this debate, from a physics interpretation and a expeirmental one, has always been the quest I think, and one supported by Lee Smolin.

So what rationality might have issue from the basis of that theoretcial position, and like I said before, it seems what pubic relations the top scientists have with the public, is to lay the foundation at the front door in a simple a way as possible from the blogosphere. What other way is so simple and direct tot he public that such distance could now been narrow to someone like Clifford in Cosmic INvariance, speaking to this very subject. Any the link below this sets the tune, and here th econtinuation of th equestion I had there that has not been repsonded too, becuase of the layman underdevleoped view of where top theoretorcians reside.

I'll give it a stab anyway. There seems to be a certain romance I have with the subject, that does not require money from any avenue, and such grants, far from the layman's view that doing this for fun, has been most rewarding becuase it brought me to see in different ways in the bulk, that others in simple life care not, and walk their way.

Plato said:

Seeking clarity in relation to experimental propositions of Glast 2006 and how it shall support one’s position over another? Will it?

High energy relevance had to meet each other in a way that cosmologically had something to do with high energy perceptions in relation to the trigger? Link on name.

The “beginning”, as first principles? Robert Laughlin saids no to “first principles”?:)

Since it is hard to put a link within a link, I thought I better put link on name here as well.

I really hate quoting myself, but alas the move is to continue regardless, so onto, "Gubser and structure information."

Lubos Motl said:

Steve Gubser (from Princeton) has just gave an interesting talk at the joint seminar in which he tried to convince us that structure formation (the process in which the early clumps of matter and the first galaxies were born) is a very interesting topic in cosmology, even for string theorists, in which some signs of new physics may be found if one tries to reproduce the observations.

How indeed would one see gluonic perception at this level bringing us ever closer to views on the window of the universe, and such leaidng indicators has to bring some noton to what started in the beginning? Non?

Bridging the chasm between mathematics and human culture

Thanks to Peter Woit for these kinds of links. As a lay person, to see this idea exemplified by such gatherings, closes the great divide. It is wonderful in a way, when one can see where these mathematics are really quite interesting aspects of vision, that can and are related to the physics of life.

What ever perspective could Thales have brought?

Thales says Water is the Primary Principle

Aristotle defined wisdom as knowledge of certain principles and causes (Metaph. 982 a2-3). He commenced his investigation of the wisdom of the philosophers who preceded him, with Thales, the first philosopher, and described Thales as the founder of natural philosophy (Metaph. 983 b21-22). He recorded: 'Thales says that it is water'. 'it' is the nature, the archê, the originating principle. For Thales, this nature was a single material substance, water. Despite the more advanced terminology which Aristotle and Plato had created, Aristotle recorded the doctrines of Thales in terms which were available to Thales in the sixth century BCE Aristotle made a definite statement, and presented it with confidence. It was only when Aristotle attempted to provide the reasons for the opinions that Thales held, and for the theories that he proposed, that he sometimes displayed caution.

So it will be interesting to see what arises from Thales inauguration in this group, as I like this approach. "The principle" with which Thales of Miletus contributed to the early dialogues? Such a foundation, might have had such topological beginnings in the idea of continuity?:) Who knows, that such thinking could be the basis of another point of view that I share here. Such vision developement would have warrented a good understanding of ways in which we can see this world, and such a basis woud have been drawn up for other perspectives. You see?:)

Spend some time on what Thales might have revealled on the site I developed, had he known the issues of gravity could have been measured in ways? That the world, is only now becoming familiar with?

Might one called it a "landscape approach" using the basis of Thales principles, and understanding the measure of the world and globe, other then the round pearl of vision and euclidean measure. That we have attached heightened and perspective minds who see this earth other then in the way evidentuary minds will accept. This might have been my message to Peter Woit, that such journies, although mathematically embued, would have been seen in theoretical developement, as useful, from the developement and perspective of what these maths entail physically. This is what is beautiful to me, that such a vision that I have attained through my work, could marrying the physics of life with abstract and somewhat untouchable connections? This method created relevance to the mathematics and the understanding of what might issue from other methods, that were "revolutions in themselves," in the way we could interpret the phsyics and world we see in careful ways.

Investigating the complex relationships between mathematics and human culture.

Exploring new ways of talking about mathematics inside the mathematical and scientific communities.

Creating new methods for communicating mathematics to the culture at large, including education.

You will find throughout my site, many links to different mathematical perspectives that were developed, from following the world of Einstein and General Relativity.

Who would have known Gauss's world might have revealled an aspect of the understanding of non-euclidean perspectives? That would point us to see Gauss's coordinates much different then Euclids. here parallel lines woud have taken on greater connotations, when elevated to brane and parallel worlds?

By studying this history, I learnt to see where physics join mathematics in a wonderful way. Some might even say that for such a roque scholar and student, there might have been some inroads to perceptions not realized before? This has been a wonderful feature of reading and writing, that model building might had truly gone on?

While it is wonderful to protect the interest of all students of a kind, the link presented here, in "Thales and Narrative," has been one that that could only come about by dialogue. Unfortunately for me, at a distant work, had to cleverly institute a method to continue such work, without the incentives and encouragements, that proper students and scholar would enjoy. But this is minor, to the wonderful things I have learnt and am learning.

Lee Smolin's Case for Background Independence

While we were privy to the debate between Susskind and Smolin in a previous post, the origins and definitions have been drawn from the deeper requirements of an ideology.

Where do these begin, and we find the inner compulsion of a scientist to find the means and defintions to extend the basis of our perceptions on a basis that both agree.

Lubos reaffirms this many times, and is in concert, as many in string theory continue to hold to what this desire should be.

Lubos saids:

Some of Lee's points can be agreed with, for example:

It is desirable to find a background independent formulation of string/M-theory

Such a formulation would likely to answer the questions whether the landscape approach to string/M-theory is correct; why it's not; what it should be replaced with.

This post represents a becoming. From those deeper levels, such a stage must be set?

Good for Lee Smolin, and the work he has been doing for laying a foundation, that all see, must reside to an synoptic closure, before such progressions become. If it got Lee smolin and others thinking, then, it served it's purpose, and those who say, a waste of time, would have undertsood then, Lee Smolin would not be where he is today on the pdf file here written.

So has Lubos has then directed our perspective in relation to how Lee Smolin sees the issues, and we have found the direct relationship and difference between how M Theory apporaches and How LQG does.

Lubos Motl saids:

An attempt to revive Mach's principle means to argue that the gravitational waves do not exist. It is a struggle to return us not only before General Relativity; it is a program to return the humankind to the pre-Newtonian era and the dark Middle Ages. Some people may be permanently impressed by Mach's principle and some people may find it shallow after a closer scrutiny. These two groups may be composed of equally nice people. But the difference is that the critics of Mach's principle have a good physical intuition; its advocates are philosophers who are unable to think analytically and quantitatively and they prefer to insist on prejudices that can be shown flawed by a five-minute-long quantitative argument.

There are catelysts all around, that ask for this deeper resolve to come forth. Asking for greater potentials in our visionistic qualities, to understand, that we can see this world very much differently? What pathway had been established then that Lee Smoln would attack this from another perspective held within the ideas of Special Relativity, that holds the idealization before the roads to gravitational understanding had been theoretically proven by Einstein.

Lubos Said:>

OK, let me start with the questions about relationism and Mach's principle. I highly recommend you the second popular book by Brian Greene, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", where the relative vs. absolute debate is covered in the first chapters. And the presentation is very nice.

How often the debate on such levels of what seems has been lacking in string/M theory that such voices extolled would relinquish it to paths unexperimentally challenged? They would have missed the opportunity ofsuch a debate brought forth from the Dialogos of Eide.

It is a strong statement which arises from the Platonic school, that such a discussion would reveal, that what is in the Heaven of ideas, could descend to minds and those who ask, those who embroil themselves, to questions of what it is, that makes the ideas of reality, a part of the natural world.

Lee Smolin:

The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

The Use of Language, over Geometric Design?

One must realize that to further develope scenarios for the mind had to consider, created conversation. To use this to formulate new steps and expansion of thought. One needs to create the situation?

So what if, Plato in this case, is not real, and "the dialogues," using this figurative object, was used to create the dialogues? Can he have ever produced further thoughts for us to consider in dramas, without a bouncing board?

So is the situation real below?

Kansas Board Holds Evolution Hearings By JOHN HANNA

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - As a State Board of Education subcommittee heard more testimony Friday on how evolution should be taught in Kansas classrooms, one member acknowledged that she hadn't read all of an evolution-friendly draft of science standards proposed by educators.

Kathy Martin of Clay Center made the comment while attempting to reassure a witness who said he hadn't read the entire proposal, just parts of it. Russell Carlson, a biochemistry and molecular biology professor at the University of Georgia, said he had reviewed an alternate proposal from intelligent design advocates.

Islamic Creationism In Turkey

Sometime in the mid 1980s, the Turkish Minister of Education, Mr. Vehbi Dinçerler [. . .] placed a call to ICR. [. . .] he wanted to eliminate the secular-based, evolution-only teaching dominant in their schools and replace it with a curriculum teaching the two models[.] As a result, several ICR books which dealt with the scientific (not Biblical) evidence for creation were translated into Turkish and distributed to all Turkey's public school teachers.

You have to wonder too, about thedistrust of and motivations seen in the Templeton foundation and the list of scientific personalities that contribute or those thinking of contributing?

This mistrust is seen by some as instigating such concerns as revealled in the issues above? Motivating society with fasle idealizations? I do not quite understand this. This is not a position I take, but was one of observance that I witnessed and relay here.

The whole issue around the Sokal Affair:

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page

.

Is it intentional, or are people easily fooled?

Is there a greater design behind and leading people into falsehoods? Is this what everyone fears could happen to them?



It's strange, but this post of yours sets up a complex scenario. About shadows and light? :)

That the tenable position would be, "the earth they stand on," some how intrudes on the surface of the moon, and from behind the earth, the sun.

A classic Plato story? :)

But lets say your post is about something else?

Not just the plain ideals of observance.



Might one believe beyond the scope of our scientific valuations? To see, that it might have some other answer to why life is the way it is. What is it's motivator? It's energy?



A higher perspective on what we know about earth is summed up in an overview of the globe. Are not the intricacies of earth's design, much more complex, then it's mere shadow causing presence?

The expansitory thinking beyond straight euclidean thinking, is much more versatile? Reveals geometrical design much more intricate then just two dimensional observances?

Thought and observance, is now telling us to think beyond the hard fact realities? You can still be a scientist and believe in God. :)

A tesserack or hypercube is a four dimensional analogue of a cube. See the figure on the left for a 2-D representation of this 4-D object. More information about these can be seen and found. Many people have difficulty believing such can exist which is why such books as Flatland (Abbott, 1884), Sphereland (Burgers, 1983), and Flatterland (Stewart, 2001) were written.

I tried to show leading indicators in this trial, further expanding it's boundry into todays world. No less than, "climate exchanges on Kyoto," and scientist to scientist, "battle for supremacy of ideology?" Intelligent design?

More abstract, the inclinations of the quote selected provided a opportunity. About what few people will ever understand? Are the roads leading to complex scenarios about the particle world.



The way Arthur Miller quote might have sufficed might be to say, "that we need to think differently about reductionistic processes."

These are all governed by geometrical consistancies although we rely on experimental process. The progression to topological forms, as abstract processes. These are relevant to our "dynamical way of thinking." If lead to fifth dimensional scenarios, you are beyond the limitations of our solid world, becasue it arose from some place else first?

The "Calorimetric view," addresses this. We create the scenario of particle collisions and measure, particle production.

None of you would know this, but the inherent "opera of image," leads you to ask, "what is a tesserack?" Non?

The last two picture gaves views from a fifth dimensional element, where gravity and light have been joined. Dali's painting, and relation to the wonder of God's son. Are these related to these higher geometrical figures and wonder about God?

We are not simple machines. As well, the computer screen is a work and play on fifth dimensional imagery. Some might assume a atheist approach to life and settle on proofs, and a s a scientist this is expected logic to validation.

Yet there is still room for thinking that within the spaces of thought, the inherent suttleness of God might pervade all things? That such thoughts could lead us to higher pinnacles above the solid world, and what is present around us now?

Why should we allocate such spiritual thinking to classes of religions like Islam and the Turkey scenario? You hurt the quest for theoretcial endeavors by limitations of ideology? When the world requires innovative thinking, "to push the boundaries of our envelope."

Without leading to these realization of the electromagnetic principles, Gauss and Maxwell relations, might we ever understand the simple visionistic world of the magnetic field?

Missing Energy Events

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

Albert Einstein
(1879- 1955)


Oskar Klein (left) proposed in the 1920s that hidden spatial dimensions might influence observed physics. He poses with physicists George Uhlenbeck (middle) and Samuel Goudsmit in 1926 at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives

It is not easy for me to follow so many minds involved in the deeper intricacies of a world, that abstractually was built, to concieve of other possibilties. If it fell within the mind's capabilties to allow such ventures, then such values become developed in the mind's neurological developement?

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)


Did it see tidbits of nature, and ways, in which to explain other views of the microscopic world? What "eye" was held to the microscope(particle reductionistic further refined) and then, with such endearing qualties spoken to us, takes us on a journey well concieved and observed?



For me then to view this compact world, and reveal the dimensional attributes of something that may seem so foreign and alien in it's guise, I realize that for the mind to peer into the deeper workings of the microscopic world, we had to understand the images the we could produce, as we learn to build mathematical structures for contemplation

Dvali uses the analogy of a metallic sheet submerged in water to illustrate the principle. If one hits the sheet with a hammer, shock waves will carry away the energy in all directions. "Most of the energy will travel along the two-dimensional surface. Only at a substantial distance away from the source will the energy loss to water be appreciable," he said. "According to our picture, we are in a very similar situation. We think gravity is 'normal' because we only measure it directly at relatively short distances, but cosmic acceleration indicates leakage.

"

To further expand on this idea of Dvali's I wanted to draw attention to the principals of this leakage. Bear with me as I try to find the literature that I have accumlated, for what is spoken now has triggered my memory by selection of these words.

So the process now is to remember where these views were previously spoken about and bring them back here for a wider comprehension of the leakage and the dimensional significance implied by Dvali, of where this extra energy is going?

Hopefully we wil see other minds involved in string theory speaking on this matter, to seal what they are doing and descibing where they think this extra energy is going?

Given the dearth of knowledge about gravity in the subcentimeter range, the group is looking for any kind of deviation from expectations, not just extradimensional effects, he says. Nonetheless, the excitement about extra dimensions helps spur the group on, Price says.

If the strength of gravity takes a sharp turn upward at around 1 TeV, as the Stanford-Trieste scenario implies, an opportunity opens for testing this theory also in accelerators. Collisions at such energies could produce gravitons in large numbers, and some of these particles would immediately vanish into the extra dimensions, carrying energy with them. Experimenters would look for an unusual pattern of so-called missing energy events.

This and more subtle effects of extra dimensions could show up at existing accelerators, such as LEP and the Tevatron at Fermilab, only if the dimensions have scales nearly as big as a millimeter. The powerful LHC will greatly improve the chances for detecting missing energy events and other prominent extradimension effects.

The bold highlight of the article preceding, points to the realization and values of what the gravitons appear to be able to do. How they can take this energy with them into those extra dimensions. This is a very important insight, that must be considered, and not just shelved because the mathematics seem disjoined from reality.

The basis of the capabilties of the dimenisonal significance in regards to these topological manueverings, had to have some basis to move from, and it is this essence, that string theory acknowledges? The energy of these gravitations in a world quite capable of being grviaational discribed, can now have a foundation in which we may describe this dynamcial issues at the quantum level?

We have moved the GR considerations of D>=4 to a much more dynamical recogntion of the probabilties inherent in energy determinations and also grvaitonic condensation values withinthe blackhole.

=> A Symmetry Breaking Phase Transition

If we understand what that point suggests, we understand well what the planck length has told us to consider, that even for the briefest of moment, the gamma ray burst would have revealled the CMB in its glory, and slowly we see how such consolidations would have materialize in the current temperatures values of that CMB today?

Below is a quote from Green that help me to recognize the energy values assigned in the KK Tower, to have understood the Radius of this circle, has to reveal symmetrical phases in the developement of that same cosmo. I needed a way in which to see how it was possible geommetrically to absorb the variations in the symmetries of events, in that same cosmo such points could have existed at any time? We needed to look for these locations. These blackholes?

How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, pages 248-249





G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1)

Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)

As you can see Brain Greene's quote at the top of the page was taken from the context of the paragraph below. One of the difficulties in a commoner like me, was trying to piece together how the develpement of the mind of string theorists, could have geometrically defined the relationships on a more abstract level. As strange as it may seem, I found other correpsondances that would have probably shaken the very foundation of our human thinking, that I could not resist looking and following these developements.

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, pages 248-249



I was attracted very early to what I seen in the Klien bottle, that such modelling of these concepts was very striking to me. How could one not have seen some correspondance to the way in which the torus could have been revealled? That one might have considered, such modelling in the shape of our universe, as the point emerged from the brane? This inside/out feature was very troubling to me and still is, that I have endeveaor to follow this line of thinking, alongside of other avenues that were less then appreciated by the scientist/theorist that I have refrained from mentioning it here now.

Figure 15-18b Conformal Changes

The Butterfly Effect

The "Butterfly Effect" is the propensity of a system to be sensitive to initial conditions.Such systems over time become unpredictable,this idea gave rise to the notion of a butterfly flapping it's wings in one area of the world,causing a tornado or some such weather event to occur in another remote area of the world.

Where do these ideas of weather exist, before they find themselves funneling into man's framework, called the brain?

It was Socrates' turn to look puzzled.
"Oh, wake up. You know what chaos is. Simple deterministic dynamics leading to irregular, random-looking behavior. Butterfly effect. That stuff."
Of course, I know that," Socrates said in irritation. "No, it was the idea of dynamic logic that was puzzling me. How can logic be dynamic

In contemplating the essence of the ideas of complexity it became increasingly clear to me, that the ideas manifesting and philosophies that were looking at this, could be recognized in tell tale signs of international terrorism of the worst kind.

The final image of the twin towers in panel shown, before, such a contemplative action, spoke to such complexities. Had we been able to see what effect this action had, we might have then said look, indeed, where is it's origination. The reveberations, "symbolically," not only shook the foundation, but was started long before and continue to this day.

Whether the state of the nation or of the world community, such attempts to disrupt, left signatures with it's ideological thinking, that became the trademark of expansive and multple effects, as if, reverberating from a initial idea. Community and science spoke freely. Had we let evil loose, from such conceptualizations?

This raises a much deeper and fundamental question then, about the nature of reality that would emerge in this Third Superstring Revolution, that such conceptualization are now open and free. That questions of self organization, had fundamental thoughts governing it's growth all along.

These ideas always existed then, in the bulk, but waited, for the right channel to express themselves? Like beget's like, and manifests into form?

You see?