Time as a Measure

SuperCosmologists Think Out of the Box, by Clifford at 1:13 am, August 3rd, 2005

From what we have learned so far about string theory, the natural starting point for doing physics which makes contact with our world seems to be to start in 9+1 dimensional spacetime. A modern perspective tells us to go further: Strings are not the only important objects in the game, but extended objects of more dimensions called “branes” are also important. (The term comes from starting with “membrane” which is a two dimensional object, calling it a “2-brane” and then having the idea of a “3-brane”, “4-brane” etc. Or just “brane” when you want to be non-specific.) It turns out that we need to consider these objects too. Fully non-perturbative considerations also encourage us to consider “M-theory”, which (at least at low energy) appears as an eleven dimensional (10+1) theory with no strings at all, just branes of a couple of sorts.

Do we suspect we had gone so far from reality to think about science we had somehow left our thought processes out of the loop, for what is demanded from science? I still like to think that with what ever process that one like Lee Smolin would want to talk abut on a philosophical level had it's counterpart in some process that I am speaking about below.

It's only fitting that while one could deal with the "abstractness spoken by Clifford" that we could have of course said the same thing with Lee Smolin's philosophical sojourns. In regards to "time," as an element of where we had taken reductionism too. To the depths of perception that speak to the very early universe. The microseconds of our universe spoken too, settled here to the 3+1 world of matter constituents.

So you see it began someplace else in dimensional perspective that is not so disconnected from the reality with which we like to work.

Experimentalists probe the structure of the proton by scattering electrons (white line) off quarks which interact by exchanging a quantum of light (wavy line) known as a photon.

See Compton and Graviton Scatterings?

How did one get to that level with which to discern the nature of the energy in relation to the photon? I have assume a certain position, in terms of what the photon represents as it speak to the very colouring of the gravitational field.



So how was one to look at the landscape without understanding that there is a measure to the nature of the gravitational field represented by that Photon?

IN relation to the landscape. This is not what stood out when I went to look at Lee Smolin’s reference to chapter 5 with regards to comment #148 I hope this shift is okay for posting?

Just drawing attention to the dates of publication and comparison of views. I was thinking of “Benchmarks” in terms of the progressions, that could have been marked as successes, and help one to realize that there was still a process unfolding?

I thought these two views countering one another?

A second obstacle arises from the theory’s reliance on the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking to explain why each of the elementary particles we see in the world has different properties. While this is a beautiful idea, there is a certain ad hoc quality to how it is realized. To this date, no one has so far observed a Higg’s particle and we have only a very imprecise idea of their properties. Page 61, The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin ISBN 0-19-510837-x 1997

As a Lay person I was thinking of the word “ad hoc” in Lee’s statement, and wonder if this is still reflected in his views of today. This was a build up and precursor to the statement about string theory in question according to Lee’s book statement??

Unravelling String Theory,by Edward Witten 29 Dec 2005

String theory is the only known generalization of relativistic quantum field theory that makes sense. The framework of special relativity plus quantum mechanics is so rigid that it practically forces quantum field theory upon us. The tightness of the modern framework is one of the main reasons why physicists were able to discover what has become the standard model of elementary particles.

Have we moved past this today and “all” in agreement?

Of course being the layman I am it is important that information that is given on Clifford's board is correct. One can quickly swipe out any statement quite easily without understanding the historical aspect of what Lee Smolin is suggesting. What is he suggesting?

Lee Smolin Mar 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am

For one thing the existence of the string landscape has been, at least for me, a great stimulus to revising the notion of time in quantum cosmology. Beyond that the context in which the role of time in quantum cosmology has to be discussed is that of attempts to formulate background independent theories, to the extent that efforts are made to construct a manifestly background independent framework for string theory in the compact case-with no asymptotic symmetries or boundary conditions, the problem of time has to be confronted.

Now of course after this I had been thinking when Lee Smolin made his statement in the selected paragraph above, some things that I had been thinking about.

Gravitational Mass for a Photon

The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon



The gravitational potential energy is then



When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency




Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

Escape Energy for Photon

If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then



Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

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

For the longest time I have tried to understand what could be used to answer Lee's statement above. While I have no substituted I looked at what the physics had to say and what we may learn from the horizon.

The elephant and the event horizon by Amanda Gefter

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

See here for article.

This process itself. Would it not instigate the position of Lee to ask what can be revealed in the nature of the photon? While there is calorimetric measures designed in Glast, was it not with the understanding that "high energy" photons could exist? We are using the "escape velocity of the photon" to discern the nature of the blackhole?

This is Lee's current measure of time in any discussion?

See this link for what was deleted from Clifford's blog and I will try and expand and clear up what was quick to be discarded. You had to follow the comments in that section, to get the idea of what "entanglement may mean" for what we see of what exists on the boundary of the blackhole,as a indicator represented by the colour of that photon. Now of course I have exceeded the perspective limited by the 3+1 as a Relativity, yet I go as far as implement the fabric of the spactime as a correlate of what we see of that photon.

It's a Penquin?

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

Unfortunately I misplaced the owner of that quote.



I just finish spending the last 8 days with two of my seven grandchildren. One had passed just a couple of days after being born.

Yes "Happy feet" has become a intricate part of my days visiting as these children are mesmerized by the hearts songs and uniqueness of being borne learning to tap instead of singing. It's trials and tribulations of being different.

Images of brain show areas that become most active during perception of pictures (a and c, in green) and sounds (e, in yellow). Small arrows point to sites of greatest activity during recall of pictures (b and d) and sounds (f). Wheeler, Petersen, Buckner/Washington Univ.

"These new studies set the stage for more intensive explorations of memory retrieval in the brain," remarks Anthony D. Wagner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge."

See more on Remembrance here

I gave reference at one time to the topic of "Super Learning" and the method used to induce information into the brain's matter.

Music and visualization combined can create quite a compelling story, and sink deep into what is "emotively charged" for our memories. It's part of that "deep play" that I had talked about previous. While one may talk on the surface about the triviality of things, useless knowledge, some things are indeed more "emotively charged."

Incites one to "take action" if felt deeply. Not all thoughts are equal? Your defining who you are "by reacting." This is your "signature."

The Mind Field

Michael Shermer-The Power of Belief-skepticism 101

See here for more explanation on the mind field.

No one said not to have this attitude about what is presented. But to breed the very attitude of arrogance that some think perpetuates areas of theoretical science, would be a good lesson, on what concert can be raised, as the "intonations echo and entrain other thoughts accordingly in the concert hall."

For some time, it was not clear to me how to get the word into this b quark paper that we were writing at the time…. Later…I had a sudden flash that the famous diagrams look like penguins. So we put the name into our paper, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

IT is no different then compiling all that has happened in Storm in a Teacup become the last statement as an image of all the statements and exchanges "felt based on the memory of our relations." The "Colour of gravity" plays an intricate part here.

What impact the agenda, while one is holding the plight of the student and workers within science to think, that the issues with Lee Smolin cannot revive the issues confronting science "other then" those agendas? These are "another issue" outside of what must be confronted separately.

A poster boy?

I was just taking a stroll through the blogosphere. I find a lot of "skeptical things" being "echoed from one person to the next?" As if, the "idea of the incredible" cannot exist in this world "without" some scientific explanation to it?

Development of the sociological idealization of the community in the matter of things and science's measure while the subjective sides suffers.

So they make fun of the idea about what is intuitive, gosh a "zen koan?" related in some way to eastern thinking. Can have a "greater meaning" by just playing with how ideas are born? Can "mature" from other things. What part did Feynman play in John Ellis's game of "dart throwing?"

Maybe it is my own ignorance then, that I do not have an explanation for "an event?" That like the young Einstein and his compass, I was maybe just not clear on what these lines may have meant in Gaussian coordinates. Does this mean I have the mind of this five year old. Like Sean, who said I was perfect? :)

The internet and Blogs


I don't have to spell it out as of late, that I could point to a paragraph and link directly to the source, "is just the echoing of what I think" is comparative to what people can do to belittle others( comments on bloggeries) and echo some idealization by example. What "tone" shall we set in motion?

To me these "point sources" linked in paragraph are more reminders what has been discovered of late. You reference by a ¹ and then go to the end of your post entry and add an addendum?

Where this research is leading. How it helps me to keep "in tune" with what is developing in the science world. Do some think these points trivial? I'd rather set the tone in motion that encourages the "subtle perceptions" that may arise in others, and include these in a critical analysis of what is related in science to that thinking?

Why bring together so many different concepts that may be of use in our scientific examination?


What Tone is being Set?

Lee Smolin:

What we are dealing with is a sociological phenomenon in the world of academic science. I do think that the ethics of science have been to some degree corrupted by the kind of groupthink explored in chapter 16, but not solely by the string-theory community. For one thing, it is the academic community writ large that makes the rules. In a court of law, a good lawyer will do anything within the law to advance the cause of his clients. We should expect that the leaders of a scientific field will likewise do everything within the unwritten rules of academia to advance their research program.

So Sean over at cosmic variance speaks about Maharishi Mathematics. The preposterousness of the post itself degenerates into the examples of what exists in eastern thinking adapted to the methods of science now?

I recall the work of Schwartz amidst the duelling Gellmann and Feynman? Can it be called that, or the philosophical difference? We know of Richard's thoughts on the philosophical of course. We know of the "eightfold path" by Murray?

Murray Gellman's reactivities to dispel corruption in the western world? Loud affirmations of "not I," as to reinforce what is thought to be the example of what is leading science in those country's philosophies? So he too was influence by the very word "Simplectics."

Sean Carroll is absorbing the influence of his location? Laughing from "that place" that his mentors did, as they welcomed "Schwartz." Never mind the desk. :)

I wonder if we can be “just as guilty” of perpetuating those things that one could despise?



Be careful least you "drawn lines" of a strange world that Dirac ventured. Whilst you drawn those "funny pictures of fabled stories" and take us on the strange journey of Alice and Babar.

Who is to know that Feynman may of understood the possibilities of the photon's journey to map this thing "as an exchange." That he could see in a geometrical way, while at a loss to write simplistically, and then, finally succeeded? See more on this relations of Gell Mann and Feynman here



Of course I am a lay person outside of the halls of science that I would want to lead by example that we have these priorities and methods to live by, other then playing the ole foolish game "look at them" and then "look at me."

Thomas Young: Deep PLay

A final aspect of beauty that was often cited by readers might be called "deep play". This is the sense that we are actively engaged with something outside ourselves that is responding to us - rather than watching a game of our own construction or watching nature from a detached distance.

I wanted to continue with the article above in my opening paragraph linked. What he called "deep play." Can it be called the "sensorium of exchange with reality" as others too, can measure it's "import to reason?" It emotively had to make sense first.

"Deep play doesn't have to do with an activity, like shallow play. It has to do with attitude or an extraordinarily intense state."-Dianne Ackerman

Can not such an idea would have enlisted even the genius to have found a way to relate to society whilst he had found intuitive moments peaking from the interplay of the "teacher and student" within themself. Engaging the world at a emotive level, whilst trying to find it's meaning about arches and Raphael mandalically placing Plato and Aristotle most centre the larger circle?

Consciousness emerges when this primordial story-the story of a object causally changing the state of the body-can be told using the universal nonverbal vocabulary of body signals. The apparent self emerges as the feeling of a feeling. When the story is first told, spontaneously, without it ever being requested, and furthermore after that when the story is repeated, knowledge about hwat the organism is living through automatically emerges as the answer to a question never asked. From that moment on, we begin to know.
Pg 31, The Feeling of What Happens, by Antonio Damasio

The "toposense" between the subjective world and the objective world. As a painting, or a "schematic," to reveal this relationship which is deeply ingrained in each of us. We just lacked the explanation of it?

Thomas Young, English scientist 1773-1829
Vision and colour theory: Young has also been called the founder of physiological optics. In 1793 he explained the mode in which the eye accommodates itself to vision at different distances as depending on change of the curvature of the crystalline lens; in 1801 he was the first to describe astigmatism; and in his Lectures he presented the hypothesis, afterwards developed by Hermann von Helmholtz, that colour perception depends on the presence in the retina of three kinds of nerve fibres which respond respectively to red, green and violet light. This theory was experimentally proven in 1959.

Some how one can have these thoughts about things "being subjective" somehow misses the scientific validation process. Are you to strict? That it is somehow related to the "philosophical analysis" and somehow not worthy of the introspective history. To even include where such ideas can emerge from is preposterous? What did they build on? Resources, which can be drawn from the archived data and materials, to greatly enhance routes that have already been established.

Would you ignore one who had developed his perspective in relation to "symmetry" and not include it in one's analysis of what may be "beautiful" yet still evades our thinking about a supersymmetrical point? AS a scientist you may have quickly sideswipe any relatin to this yet I know scientists who might have said otherwise.

Only does it then make sense, when something is asymmetrically emerging from it? Discrete?

Beauty, Plato wrote, is not easy to define, but something that "slips through and evades us". For this reason, many logic-oriented philosophical approaches tend to divorce and even oppose truth and beauty. "The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."

See: The most beautiful experiment

Status of "Warp Drive"

Time is of your own making;
its clock ticks in your head.
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead. Angelus Silesius

The plot created here in this post in this fictional sense(?) so that I too may deal with the issues of time travel?

Of course time travel is on my mind for reason that some may not suspect, yet it is with "past history" that we are "embedded with knowledge" from our past attempts. From these, if knowledge is acquired for each soul, then how is it that it sat for for the day to be awaken properly? Where did we begin?

Two main difficulties arise from Plato's view of Transmigration. First, Plato says that we have knowledge of universals because of the experiences of our souls in past lives. However, whence comes the knowledge of the first soul? In purely Platonic theory, it must have had no knowledge at all, and hence Plato's concept of transmigration as the basis for innate knowledge fails. A second difficulty lies in explaining the varying, and especially the apparently increasing number of incarnated souls over history.

So this knowledge is somewhere? Is it as if we move our focus on the Tonal, and we see differently, or, that by profound shifts in our perspective on model apprehension, that we see anew?


Sir Isaac Newton


If we had been changed then, had it been from the Tabula Rusa being blank?

It is as if, "the cosmologist has been detained," bewteen the beginning and end of this universe, yet, shall not ask, "what is it" and, "how did it begin?" That it's very existance it came from nothing, thus, shall never end? How illogical is this?

Plato:One of the things that appeared so strange to me was in how we could look at gravitational variances with scientific means. As we know now, this is being accomplished in ways that test the minds imagination, as to how we would apply these features here to earth, and beyond. Timespeak

How "warped the mind then," to create such a controversy. Use this to exemplify a point about creativity? Have I some how degraded "the wording" to show that "what is possssible" is indeed the imaginary mind that likes to play tricks, whilst it developes this whole new train of thought? Simultaneity?


Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)

Sir William Shakespeare


Sir Francis Bacon, disguised by "Shakespearean thought," was just an actor of "creativity," portraying a role of a political man? Yet, the thoughts extended, as if this man was in another place and time? Is it that easy? This story true?

Plato:Creativity? Ways in which we allow "information" to travel through? Play the game? Allow "ingenuity" as the "poetic river that flows" to the surface on you, from everything, or, the blank slate?

Is it useless knowledge then or that science requires this blank slate to allow us to deliver on the basis of science? Each starting position, that we write clearly and hence know that from that time forward, what is being built upon?

Time travel

Plato:Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?Tunneling in Faster then Light

Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.

So previous(Tunneling in Faster than Light) to this post, I tried to show where my thinking was currently held in regards to anti-particle/particle, as examples of what is happening in LHC.

Also, I cleared the air of what was held in mind in terms of the Cerenkov radiation transported ahead of, in faster then light medium capabilities as the blue light. This does not remove my speculations in terms of what is happening in probing the "perfect fluid" and the dissipative effect of microstate blackhole creation. What happens in that moment of high energy collision processes.

Bacon is Shakespeare?

A modern day puzzle, becomes, blogger world signatures? Taken to a, "Whole....nother....Level.



Creativity? Ways in which we allow "information" to travel through? Play the game? Allow "ingenuity" as the "poetic river that flows" to the surface on you, from everything, or, the blank slate?

What kind of person are you who reveals them self in the words chosen, or the picture highlighted? Humor, as a deeper response for those who look beyond the confines of words, and laugh? We just intuitively get it?

What use that language?

Tragedies, where allowed "the other to speak," and let loose all the mournings of words lost, are covered by our heart's responses? "Released." The soul without it's burdens, carries on. Not really.

Describes the "fictional" in face of the real, while "highlighting the injustices" performing characters, as individual/politicians saved? Another place, and time?


Francis Bacon, De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum, 1623.

The knowledge of Cyphering, hath drawne on with it a knowledge relative unto it, which is the knowledge of Discyphering, or of Discreting Cyphers, though a man were utterly ignorant of the Alphabet of the Cypher, and the Capitulations of secrecy past between the Parties. Certainly it is an Art which requires great paines and a good witt and is (as the other was) consecrate to the Counsels of Princes: yet notwithstanding by diligent prevision it may be made unprofitable, though, as things are, it be of great use. For if good and faithfull Cyphers were invented & practised, many of them would delude and forestall all the Cunning of the Decypherer, which yet are very apt and easie to be read or written: but the rawnesse and unskilfulnesse of Secretaries, and Clarks in the Courts of Princes, is such, that many times the greatest matters are Committed to futile and weake Cyphers.
But it may be, that in the enumeration, and, as it were, taxation of Arts, some may thinke that we goe about to make a great Muster-rowle of Sciences, that the multiplication of them may be more admired; when their number perchance may be displayed, but their forces in so short a Treatise can hardly be tried. But for our parts wee doe faithfully pursue our purpose, and in making this Globe of Sciences, we would not omitt the lesser and remoter Ilands. Neither have we (in our opinion) touched these Arts perfunctorily, though cursorily; but with a piercing stile extracted the marrow and pith of them out of a masse of matter. The judgement hereof we referre to those who are most able to judge of these Arts. For seeing it is the fashion of many who would be thought to know much, that every where making ostentation of words and outward termes of Arts, they become a wonder to the ignorant, but a derision to those that are Masters of those Arts: we hope that our Labours shall have a contrarie successe, which is, that they may arrest the judgment of every one who is best vers'd in every particular Art; and be undervalued by the rest . As for those Arts which may seeme to bee of inferior ranke and order, if any man thinke wee attribute too much unto them; Let him looke about him and hee shall see that there bee many of speciall note and great account in their owne Countrie, who when they come to the chiefe City or feat of the Estate, are but of mean ranke and scarcely regarded: so it is no marvaile if these sleighter Arts, placed by the Principall and supreme Sciences, seeme pettie things; yet to those that have chosen to spend their labours and studies in them, they seeme great and excellent matters. And thus much of the Organ of Speech. -- Francis Bacon, The Advancement and Proficience of Learning, p 257-71, Book VI, 1640.

Sciences current work in Cryptography? A Vast difference then what is reveal in the Shakespearean language? Maybe, it is here, where I see the questions of Susskind's thought experiment about the elephant in two places?

We've learnt in the natural sciences that the key to understanding can often be found if we lift certain dividing lines in our minds. Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground according to the same laws that govern the Moon's orbit of the Earth. And with this he made the old differentiation between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete. Darwin showed that there is no dividing line between man and animal. And Einstein lifted the line dividing space and time. But in our heads, we still draw a dividing line between "reality" and "knowledge about reality", in other words between reality and information. And you cannot draw this line. There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing between reality and information. All this thinking and talking about reality is about information, which is why one should not make a distinction in the formulation of laws of nature. Quantum theory, correctly interpreted, is information theory.

So we find the methods to determine the beginning(Tabula Rusa) and what had always existed in a ideological discourse about which was before "form?"

Innatism is a philosophical doctrine introduced by Plato in the socratic dialogue Meno which holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a tabula rasa at birth. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. Innatism is the opposite of empiricism.

Plato claimed that humans are born with ideas/forms in the mind that are in a dormant state. He claimed that we have acquired these ideas prior to our birth when we existed as souls in the world of Forms. To access these, humans need to be reminded of them through proper education and experience.

So shall one then debate about what existed in the beginning of this universe, if we are presented with the thought that we are already born with knowledge and ideas? That we should start from such a blank slate? So then for you, nothing existed before? Or has something philosophically and profoundly, always existed?

This means you can never discard what you set in motion, only that what you started has consequences, and moves into the next life? So we try and do it right in this one. We accept the burden/choice for growth, and learn.

But this is a personal choice. We do not in face of "what lies in the dormant state" disregard empiricism. You see Plato and Aristotle together, don't you?

So we come to what is of value after we have learn about Cerenkov radiation and what did not exist before, now exists? Time travel? How is this possible in the scenario of LHC? Have we accepted faster then light entities in our assessment of what goes beyond the speed of light? Then I have to show how this is so?

Foundations of Mathematic

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beautya beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry.

--BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

In a Question below, is it worth it, to look at the context of what groups who gather might spark to the rest of society(click on it)? Look at what it has done for myself, and the reasons why such inductive/deductive features seem to be a part of the origins of cognitive functions that mathematically display itself?

Is there a theme in this regard through my blog that I had questioned earlier and links brought forth to raise awareness of what might have been implied in that true "consciousness sense" about the very nature of our involvement in the nature of reality?

But then too, awareness, about the death of such sensations. This is most troubling to me, if such model consumptions had made this impression then what had happened to the views as they exploded into the other realms? Other Realms? Why would I introduce Thales as a culminative vision about what could emerge and the father of geometry? Models make our view culmnative and increase the vision capabilites. Is there no one here that see differently after they had crossed a page to find that in our new tomorrows we see reality a little different now?

You have been touched at a most deep level, that goes beyond the death of such sensations as Toposense, or momentums of curvatures. A microscopic eye now, to the quantum nature, right next to your reading from this screen. It's in the air all around you, this potential? :)

Plato:

Mathematics(logic?) and experiment?

I respond in that thread, and although it would seems disjointed from the rest of the commentaries, I thought I was talking directly to Sean's opening post. So I have linked the post on the very title as I have done with previous entires, as they have been setting the pace for my thinking about what views they share and what safety net is placed out there for us lay readers.

Would this impede my question as to the relation of philosphy in Sean's opening statement, to find that it had found a trail that leads to reasons why funding and perspective on it, should be thought about most carefully. Held in the esteem, with which one's adventures in physics and mathematics might have benefited society?

I understand this need for determination, and as well, the need to reaffirm what philosophy might hold in regards to truly active memebers of the science community and the projects they are engaged in. Would they have a distain for the philosophy of mathematics?

I left a question mark out there, and this question although never answered did see some slight comment in relation to the philosophy that where such logic might have gained in relation, being mentioned. I'll have to explain this some more so you understand that I am working hard to make sense of what is out there and viewed, whether in the tabloids, or what ever generalizations made by mathematicians, or the physicist who looks that little bit further.

Shall I quickly respond to the thread commetary or should I continue? I thnk it important that I respond to the comments rasied but I'll do this after by highlighting the area that spoke to me in relation to this train of thought.

I linked a quote from Plato on the idea of philosophy in my comment. I wil be moving from that position.

Philosophy of Mathematics

Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.
The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

You have to understand that although I am deficient in the math skills many have, it is not without effort that I am enaging myself in what appears to be beautiful and simplistic design when completed as a model. When we look at what the Wunderkammern had to offer in a revitalizing and dusting off of, models that were concretized for us. Did they lanquish until they were refurbished to the museums of time, so that we may again look at what mathematics has accomplished for us. In ways, that are very abstract and beautiful? What then exist as you gazed into the magnetic field, the dynamcis of brane held issues and the exemplification of design in those branes? It had to follow consistent and progressive developement in the physics of.



The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner

The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess. However, this is not our present subject. The principal point which will have to be recalled later is that the mathematician could formulate only a handful of interesting theorems without defining concepts beyond those contained in the axioms and that the concepts outside those contained in the axioms are defined with a view of permitting ingenious logical operations which appeal to our aesthetic sense both as operations and also in their results of great generality and simplicity.

[3 M. Polanyi, in his Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1958), says: "All these difficulties are but consequences of our
refusal to see that mathematics cannot be defined without acknowledging
its most obvious feature: namely, that it is interesting" (p 188).]

Social constructivism or social realism

Now here is the part, that while I saw the devloping nature of the tread of thinking and comments how would I answer and stay in tune? I previously spoke of John Nash and the inherent nature of mathematics as it could pierce the bargaining process, that to have this moved t a dynamcial social and constructive pallette developed in the ongoing relations of nations, why would such a scoial construct not be recognized as to the direction and strength of what mathematics might mean from a cognitive and developing brain that we have.

This theory sees mathematics primarily as a social construct, as a product of culture, subject to correction and change. Like the other sciences, mathematics is viewed as an empirical endeavor whose results are constantly compared to 'reality' and may be discarded if they don't agree with observation or prove pointless. The direction of mathematical research is dictated by the fashions of the social group performing it or by the needs of the society financing it. However, although such external forces may change the direction of some mathematical research, there are strong internal constraints (the mathematical traditions, methods, problems, meanings and values into which mathematicians are enculturated) that work to conserve the historically defined discipline.

This runs counter to the traditional beliefs of working mathematicians, that mathematics is somehow pure or objective. But social constructivists argue that mathematics is in fact grounded by much uncertainty: as mathematical practice evolves, the status of previous mathematics is cast into doubt, and is corrected to the degree it is required or desired by the current Mathematical Community. This can be seen in the development of analysis from reexamination of the calculus of Leibniz and Newton. They argue further that finished mathematics is often accorded too much status, and folk mathematics not enough, due to an over-belief in axiomatic proof and peer review as practices.

This gets very comlicated for me. Yet I recognize the inhernet pattern at the basis of these negotiatons and the games involved. More to follow, and short on time.

Inverse Square Law, Sound

Acoustic Physics

Of course you must remember, that I was influence by the Triangle man, and the idea of sound valuation in the determinatins of how we see differently. While complex math is the desired result of all the efforts of physics explanatory developement, there are ways in analogistc senses, that we may compare the values of the auditorium and how sound is reproduced for us visionaries of a slightly more complex reality we all like to further develope beyond that standard model.

In more technical language, sound "is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material" (Olson 1957) or series of mechanical compressions and rarefactions or longitudinal waves that successively propagate through media that are at least a little compressible (solid, liquid or gas but not vacuum). In sound waves parts of matter (molecules or groups of molecules) move in a direction of the spreading of the disturbance (as opposite to transversal waves). The cause of sound waves is called the source of waves, e.g. a violin string vibrating upon being bowed or plucked.

So while indeed I am sort of in dismay as to what the reality is in presenting Quantum geometry to the realms of quantum gravity, the mathematical valuation is very real and sealed for those math types, that the issue of "points" become blurred as in any quantum mechanical position of uncertainty, that when we see sound valution take on different energy determinations radiate outward from sources un impeded how smooth does it actually look?


The sound intensity from a point source of sound will obey the inverse square law if there are no reflections or reverberation. A plot of this intensity drop shows that it drops off rapidly.

Amazing Sounds

There are rules we follow and some rules that are defined just as they might be in terms of the inverse square law, we see comparative views must hold, to well defined equations. So can we play the game now.

Examples of Reverberation Times

One way to respond to the question "What is a good range of reverberation times for concert halls?" is to give examples of some of the most famous halls in the world. For the overall average reverberation times:

Vienna, Musikvereinsaal : 2.05 seconds

Boston, Symphony Hall: 1.8 seconds

New York, Carnegie Hall: 1.7 seconds

But the overall average reverberation time does not tell the whole story. The variation of reverberation time with frequency is also important

What is a Phonon/Photon?

Phonon: A particle of sound. The energy E of a phonon is given by the Einstein relation, E = hf. Here f is the frequency of the sound and h is Planck's constant. The momentum p of a photon is given by the de Broglie relation, p = h/λ. Here λ is the wavelength of the sound.

Photon: A particle of light. The energy E of a photon is given by the Einstein relation, E = hf. Here f is the frequency of the light and h is Planck's constant. The momentum p of a photon is given by the de Broglie relation, p = h/λ. Here λ is the wavelength of the light.

But with some help here lmitation have been drawn to compaative valuations where such background non background detrminations have foundthemselves combing in views that sucha raod to a quantum grviaty ppursuate in string has less then what is desirable to what most see as necessary.

Planck Length



John Baez:

The most conservative approach to quantum gravity is to seek a theory that combines the best features of general relativity and quantum field theory. To do this, we must try to find a background-free quantum theory with local degrees of freedom propagating causally. While this approach may not succeed, it is definitely worth pursuing. Given the lack of experimental evidence that would point us towards fundamentally new principles, we should do our best to understand the full implications of the principles we already have!

This has a quick and sobering effect when our views are drawn to such theoretical formats. We have to seen how "discrete points" and "wave functions in smooth topological valuations could have embolden the view of the dynamics in the concert hall, as effects beyond the normal scope of vision. Lives held, and cherished sounds around the feasibility that our choices had effective circumstances in the envirmoment of time valuation.

While some would set the order of books derived from synoptic events as illusions, more then journalistic festitudes that we all like to engage in, then why can we not a Michio Kaku, or Brian Greene in words become?

Shall we not assign such views to the roads travelled, in the words supported by "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity?" A Lee Smolin song about the story and views of the three approaches?

Let's say you are a Peter Woit and success finds you in your new book. Shall we assign you to a separation of groups. To which lives held in distinct sufferings and restrictions to a "alloted time" with which you may have become part fo the "fabric of the populace?" Your duration or shortness of breath?

It has no end that some will make their empression, and some will become a deeper marker of the wonders about what has traversed through our our reasoning that the desired results by consensus are recognzied even in this division.

Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623 – August 19, 1662)

Born in Clermont-Ferrand (France), the young Pascal was introduced to mathematics and physics by his father. So precocious was his talent in these disciplines that he published his innovative Essai pour les coniques [Essay on conics] in 1632, at only sixteen. In 1631, he moved to Paris, where he frequented the intellectual circle of Marin Mersenne (1588-1648)—a forum for the discussion of the most topical scientific and philosophical questions. In 1644, he became interested in the technological aspects of scientific research, devising a calculating machine that could perform additions and subtractions. In 1646, he conducted path-breaking research on the vacuum and fluid dynamics. He devoted two major works to fluids—Équilibre des liqueurs [Equilibrium of liquids] and De la pesanteur de la masse d'air [On the weight of the mass of air]—written in 1651-1654, but not published until 1663. In 1653-1654, he composed some brief but seminal papers on combinatory calculus, infinitesimal calculus, and probability. Pascal repeated Evangelista Torricelli's experiment, using various liquids and containers of different shapes and sizes. This research, in addition to the publication of Expériences nouvelles touchant le vide [New experiments on the vacuum], culminated in the famous experiment performed in 1648 on the Puy-de-Dôme, in which he demonstrated that atmospheric pressure lessens with an increase in altitude.

In parallel with his scientific pursuits, Pascal displayed a deep and abiding concern with religious and moral issues. In his youth, he espoused Jansenism and began to frequent the Port-Royal group. These contacts form the background to the Lettres provinciales (1656-1657) and the Pensées (published posthumously in 1670).

I had to lay this out before I continued to speak to the world Lubos motl directs us too. In a way, these mathematical pursuance and comprehensions, are revealing, when they speak to the greater probability of discovering the root systems mathematically as well as philosophically. Cases in point, about compaction scenarios are self explanatory when it comes to energy determination and particle reductionism . This relationship to idealization of supergravity, points thinking to a vast overall comprehension suited to the culminations of a model employed such as string theory?

But back to the point of focus here.

Earlier derivation of Pascal's thinking, "are roads that even he was lead too," that we have this fine way in which to speak about the root of mathematical initiative, and these roots leading to mathematical forays into the natural world.


Diagram 6. Khu Shijiei triangle, depth 8, 1303.

The so called 'Pascal' triangle was known in China as early as 1261. In '1261 the triangle appears to a depth of six in Yang Hui and to a depth of eight in Zhu Shijiei (as in diagram 6) in 1303. Yang Hui attributes the triangle to Jia Xian, who lived in the eleventh century' (Stillwell, 1989, p136). They used it as we do, as a means of generating the binomial coefficients.

It wasn't until the eleventh century that a method for solving quadratic and cubic equations was recorded, although they seemed to have existed since the first millennium. At this time Jia Xian 'generalised the square and cube root procedures to higher roots by using the array of numbers known today as the Pascal triangle and also extended and improved the method into one useable for solving polynomial equations of any degree' (Katz, 1993, p191.)

See I am somewhat starting with a disadvantage because buried in my head is the reasons for describing math more then it's intuitionist valuation in computer generated idealizations. It all of a sudden brings into perspective a deeper sense of the possibilities and probabilities?

Here I am quickly reminded of Gerard t'hooft, and the thinking, about reductionistic views of information in computerized versions. Philosophically how can we have reduced information to such sizes and find the world a much more complex place. Would we not realize that such intuitionist attempts too have to undergo revisions as well?

A Short History of Probability

"A gambler's dispute in 1654 led to the creation of a mathematical theory of probability by two famous French mathematicians, Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat. Antoine Gombaud, Chevalier de Méré, a French nobleman with an interest in gaming and gambling questions, called Pascal's attention to an apparent contradiction concerning a popular dice game. The game consisted in throwing a pair of dice 24 times; the problem was to decide whether or not to bet even money on the occurrence of at least one "double six" during the 24 throws. A seemingly well-established gambling rule led de Méré to believe that betting on a double six in 24 throws would be profitable, but his own calculations indicated just the opposite.

Shall we quickly advantage to a age of reason where understand well the beginnings of mathematical systems and lead into Boltzman? But before I do that, I wanted to drawn attention to the deeper significance of this model appreciation.

Discovering Patterns



While we get some understanding here of what Pascal's triangle really is you learn to sense the idea of what culd have ever amounted to expressionand this beginning? Did nature tell us it will be this way, or some other form of expression?

So overall the probability of expressionism has devloped the cncptual basis as arriving from soem place and not nothing. True enough, what is this basis of existance that we would have a philosphical war between the background versus non background to end up in stauch positional attitudes about how one should approach science here?

So to me, I looked for analogies again to help me understand this idea of what could have ever arisen out of string theory that conceptually mad esense . Had a way in which to move forward, with predictable features? Is their sucha things dealing with the amount of information that we have in reductionsitic views. These views had to come to a end, and I will deal with this later.

Of course now such idealization dealng with probabilties off course, forces me to contend with what has always existed and helps deal with this cyclcial nature. You have to assume soemthing first. That will be the start of the next post.

But back to finishing this notion of probability and how the natural order of the universe would have said folow this way young flower, that we coud seen expansionism will not only be detailled in the small things, but will be the universe, in it's expression as well?


The Pinball Game

The result is that the pinball follows a random path, deflecting off one pin in each of the four rows of pins, and ending up in one of the cups at the bottom. The various possible paths are shown by the gray lines and one particular path is shown by the red line. We will describe this path using the notation "LRLL" meaning "deflection to the left around the first pin, then deflection right around the pin in the second row, then deflection left around the third and fourth pins".

So what has happened here to force us to contend with certain issues that the root numbers of all things could have manifested, and said, "nature shall be this way?"


Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906)

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

So what has happened that we see the furthest reaches of our universe? Such motivation having been initiated, had been by some motivator. Shall you call it intelligent design(God) when it is very natural process that had escaped our reasoning minds?

So having reached it's limitation(boundry) this curvature of the universe, has now said, "such disorder having reached it's reductionistic views has now found it's way back to the beginning of this universe's expression? It's cyclical nature?

This runs "contray to the arrow of time," in that these holes, have somehow fabricated form in another mode of thought that represents dimensional values? This basis from which to draw from, had to have energy valuations missing fromthe original expression? It had to have gone some place. Where is that?

But I have digressed greatly, to have missed the point of Robert Lauglin's principals, "of building blocks or drunk sergeant majors", and what had been derived from the energy in it's beginning? To say the complexity of those things around us had to returned our thinking back to some concept that was palitable.

Why the graduation to ISCAP, and Lenny's new book, is the right thing to do

(LEONARD SUSSKIND:) What I mostly think about is how the world got to be the way it is. There are a lot of puzzles in physics. Some of them are very, very deep, some of them are very, very strange, and I want to understand them. I want to understand what makes the world tick. Einstein said he wanted to know what was on God's mind when he made the world. I don't think he was a religious man, but I know what he means.

The thing right now that I want to understand is why the universe was made in such a way as to be just right for people to live in it. This is a very strange story. The question is why certain quantities that go into our physical laws of nature are exactly what they are, and if this is just an accident. Is it an accident that they are finely tuned, precisely, sometimes on a knife's edge, just so that the world could accommodate us?

Calming the Fears by Making Aware

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

It is important to understand where this research has lead some of us to looking. We mentioned Steve Giddings earlier and Lubos has provide some of this information that helps to further enlighten. Because there are fundamental processes unfolding in high energy considrations it is well that we are aware of the encounters that can come forward in the production of these particles?

Published on KurzweilAI.net June 26, 2003.

Parallel worlds

What do you think of Sir Martin Rees' concerns about the risk of creating black holes on Earth in his book, Our Final Hour?
Michio Kaku:

I haven't read his book, but perhaps Sir Martin Rees is referring to many press reports that claim that the Earth may be swallowed up by a black hole created by our machines. This started with a letter to the editor in Scientific American asking whether the RHIC accelerator in Brookhaven, Long Island, will create a black hole which will swallow up the earth. This was then picked up by the Sunday London Times who then splashed it on the international wire services, and all of a sudden, we physicists were deluged with hundreds of emails and telegrams asking whether or not we are going to destroy the world when we create a black hole in Long Island.

So the very idea that creation of blackholes, might have seemed somewhat strange then what is postulated in terms of being possible here, would help to further enlighten? We have been directed already to what is available around us in our new perspective views. So we have advanced here:)We do not overwhelm cosmological idealizations, with "false ideological statements" about it's uselessness.

The Quantum Universe

The LHC and a Linear Collider will address many questions about extra dimensions: How many extra dimensions are there? What are their shapes and sizes? How are they hidden? What are the new particles associated with extra dimensions? Through the production of new particles that move in the extra space, the LHC will have direct sensitivity to extra dimensions 10 billion times smaller than the size of an atom. A Linear Collider would determine the number, size and shape of extra dimensions through their small effects on particle masses and interactions. There is also a chance that, due to the existence of extra dimensions, microscopic black holes may be detected at the LHC or in the highest energy cosmic rays.

We can now see, where such applications, have further been developed. It was somebody else's being short sighted, that one realizes that there is a particle concern to how we percieve the nature of our universe:)



Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time:The Case for the e+ e- Linear Collider

Other ideas to solve the hierarchy problem postulate extra spatial dimensions beyond the three that we know, or new particles at the several TeV scale. If such ideas are correct, we again expect observable consequences at the LHC and the LC and a synergy will exist between them. For example, the LC and LHC combined can deduce both the size and number of extra dimensions. The new states expected from extra dimensions could perhaps be sensed directly at the LHC, but the precision measurements at the LC can measure their effects even for particles well above the range of the direct measurements.

So ever closer now one must pay attention to what does "not make sense" and we find that tidbits being left around actually if perceptive enough, will help you to explore other things. See, if I am told once and you read, the depth of perception will never make sense if you don't follow those leads and Lubos gave us one to consider:)

Peter SteinbergThe creepy part of these kind of discussions is that one doesn't say that RHIC collisions "create" black holes, but that nucleus-nucleus collisions, and even proton-proton collisions, are in some sense black holes, albeit black holes in some sort of "dual" space which makes the theory easier.




And if you are even more thick skinned, what focused can be developed from that to here. So if you do not understand the question, it is obvious you have not followed what was put before you for consideration. Hence Crackpotism or senseless?

It is a easy hand, under chin contemplating, playing games like rock, paper, or scissors ( that one can wave off) as to what is not understood as being senseless.

It is a better hand that can point up with the finger(heaven) or a open hand(ground) to say, look around you?:)We would like to develope these concepts further, under the Arche. We may be old personalities, but we still like to discuss the nature of the universe.:)

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