KK: Kaluza Klein Theory

What is it?

KK Tower



Now part of the problem of visualization here is what and how the cosmic string could have developed. Now, determination of the various sizing of these strings would have had to incorporate the value of the energy involved, in terms of 1r and using the KK tower, such classifcations help in this direction.

Kaluza-Klein theory is a model which unifies classical gravity and electromagnetism. It was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza that if general relativity is extended to a five-dimensional spacetime, the equations can be separated out into ordinary four-dimensional gravitation plus an extra set, which is equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, plus an extra scalar field known as the "dilaton". Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up with a very small radius, i.e. that a particle moving a short distance along that axis would return to where it began. The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies.

Kaluza-Klein theory can be extended to cover the other fundamental forces - namely, the weak and strong nuclear forces - but a straightforward approach, if done using an odd dimensional manifold runs into difficulties involving chirality. The problem is that all neutrinos appear to be left-handed, meaning that they are spinning in the direction of the fingers of the left hand when they are moving in the direction of the thumb. All anti-neutrinos appear to be right-handed. Somehow particle reactions are asymmetric when it comes to spin and it is not straightforward to build this into a Kaluza-Klein theory since the extra dimensions of physical space are symmetric with respect to left-hand spinning and r-hand spinning particles.

So in order to get to the summation, views of hidden dimenisons had to be mathematically described for us, so a generalization here would suffice in the following diagram.



Now, not having the room to explain, and having linked previous information on extension of KK theory, I wondered about the following. If we understood well, the leading perspective that lead us through to the dynamical realizations, then the road Gauss and Reimann lead us to would help us to understand the visualization materializing by the calorimeter disciptions of each energy placement harmonically describing each particle's value?

Electromagnetic Calorimeter of the Phenix


If one understood well enough about the direction of discernation of early universe consideration and microstates, then such questions would have been of value in the ideas of topological considerations?

Here again I would point to the Glast determinations and of how we percieve these comological interactions, that continue to be built mathematically? Cosmic string developement would have shown energy valuation that would have continued to expand if we see this as a continous fucntion of particle identification? The matter states would have become distinctive inregards to the weak field manifestations represented in the comsological functions of our universe now?

We would have had to learn to map topological considerations, and the only way is how we see the calorimeter is used?

A Sphere that is Not so Round

Of course the most basic shape for me would be the sphere, but in our understanding of the earth and the images that we see of earth, our view is shattered by the first time we seen this enormous object, from the eyes of those who had always been earth bound and restricted to the calculation of a abstract world.

Now it is not so round, and the views we recieve of this information help us to understand a few things about the way in which we will look at the earth and its weak field manifestation, as one extreme of the whole gravitational framework we like to understand over this complex perspective of our cosmos from the very strong gravitational foreces, to the very weak.

Gravity is the force that pulls two masses together. Since the earth has varied features such as mountains, valleys, and underground caverns, the mass is not evenly distributed around the globe. The "lumps" observed in the Earth's gravitational field result from an uneven distribution of mass inside the Earth. The GRACE mission will give us a global map of Earth's gravity and how it changes as the mass distribution shifts. The two satellites will provide scientists from all over the world with an efficient and cost-effective way to map the Earth's gravity field.

The primary goal of the GRACE mission is to map the Earth's gravity field more accurately than has ever been done before. You might ask, how will GRACE do this? Two identical spacecraft will fly about 200 kilometers apart. As the two GRACE satellites orbit the Earth they are pulled by areas of higher or lower gravity and will move in relation to each other. The satellites are located by GPS and the distance between them is measured by microwave signals. The two satellites do not just carry science instruments, they become the science instrument. When mass moves from place to place within the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, land or frozen surface (the "cryosphere"), the gravity field changes.

Highlighting in bold, it would not be necessary to go into a full explanation if we considered in context the cosmic string and clumping in our universe? But I have moved to far from the point of reference of our two systems of consideration here so back to the next point.

NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.

One of the interesting ideas in these shapes is understanding what can cause disturbances within their fields and how we might look at these issues if we move our consideration from the normals views of measure stick and straight lines, to variations we have demonstrated on earth(hills and valleys). To how we would percieve "resonance" created in the sun, and use this, to determine the volatile solar coronas that would be ejected into space but of weather systems affected as well. This is a good monitoring tool fore warning system that could affect communication within the sphere of our own influence.



But let me take this one step further, in that we consider both these frames, in context of each other and ask the connection in lagrangian way. How would we see gravitational points of consideration related to each other? Would this help those less inclined to understand the variations in perspective of gravity to comprehend the value Einstein lead us through, to take us to a much more dynamical view of the cosmos?

So in the one sense to take what we know of the formulation at a euclidean level and move it accordingly, to cosmological perspectives. This is a apprehenson of Gr that we are geometrically lead through, to perspectives of the space we would now enjoy of Gauss. Having Reimann views here of spherical consideration, we understand well, the developing roads to mathematical perspective debated and shunned by Peter?:)

So looking at the way in which we entertain the earth view, and how we interpret the sun, we do not limit our views just to the spherical balls one might like to say is self evident, but having the knowledge of what we are lead through geometrically as well as toplogically, it becomes a much more interesting reality to entertain.

A Happy News Years to all those who visit:)

Where to Now?

Once you see parts of the picture, belonging to the whole, then it becomes clear what a nice picture we will have?:) I used it originally for the question of the idea of a royal road to geometry, but have since progressed.

If you look dead center Plato reveals this one thing for us to consider, and to Aristotle, the question contained in the heading of this Blog.

It is beyond me sometimes to wonder how minds who are involved in the approaches of physics and mathematics might have never understood the world Gauss and Reimann revealled to us. The same imaging that moves such a mind for consideration, would have also seen how the dimensional values would have been very discriptive tool for understanding the dynamics at the quantum level?

As part of this process of comprehension for me, was trying to see this evolution of ordering of geometries and the topological integration we are lead too, in our apprehension of the dynamics of high energy considerations. If you follow Gr you understand the evolution too what became inclusive of the geometry developement, to know the physics must be further extended as a basis of our developing comprehension of the small and the large. It is such a easy deduction to understand that if you are facing energy problems in terms of what can be used in terms of our experimentation, that it must be moved to the cosmological pallette for determinations.

As much as we are lead to understand Gr and its cyclical rotation of Taylor and hulse, Mercuries orbits set our mind on how we shall perceive this quantum harmonic oscillator on such a grand scale,that such relevance between the quantum and cosmological world are really never to far apart?

As I have speculated in previous links and bringing to a fruitation, the methods of apprehension in euclidean determinations classically lead the mind into the further dynamcis brought into reality by saccheri was incorporated into Einsteins model of GR. Had Grossman not have shown Einstein of these geoemtrical tendencies would Einstein completed the comprehsive picture that we now see of what is signified as Gravity?

So lets assume then, that brane world is a very dynamcial understanding that hold many visual apparatus for consideration. For instance, how would three sphere might evolve from this?

Proper understanding of three sphere is essential in understanding how this would arise in what I understood of brane considerations.

Spherical considerations to higher dimensions.

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in n-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number.

a 1-sphere is a pair of points ( - r,r)
a 2-sphere is a circle of radius r
a 3-sphere is an ordinary sphere
a 4-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space
However, see the note above about the ambiguity of n-sphere.
Spheres for n ≥ 5 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere.

INtegration of geometry with topological consideration then would have found this continuance in how we percieve the road leading to topolgical considerations of this sphere. Thus we would find the definition of sphere extended to higher in dimensions and value in brane world considerations as thus:



In topology, an n-sphere is defined as the boundary of an (n+1)-ball; thus, it is homeomorphic to the Euclidean n-sphere described above under Geometry, but perhaps lacking its metric. It is denoted Sn and is an n-manifold. A sphere need not be smooth; if it is smooth, it need not be diffeomorphic to the Euclidean sphere.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points with the discrete topology
a 1-sphere is a circle
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold without boundary.

The Heine-Borel theorem is used in a short proof that an n-sphere is compact. The sphere is the inverse image of a one-point set under the continuous function ||x||. Therefore the sphere is closed. Sn is also bounded. Therefore it is compact.

Sometimes it is very hard not to imagine this sphere would have these closed strings that would issue from its poles and expand to its circumference, as in some poincare projection of a radius value seen in 1r. It is troubling to me that the exchange from energy to matter considerations would have seen this topological expression turn itself inside/out only after collapsing, that pre definition of expression would have found the evoltuion to this sphere necessary.

Escher's imaging is very interesting here. The tree structure of these strings going along the length of the cylinder would vary in the structure of its cosmic string length based on this energy determination of the KK tower. The imaging of this closed string is very powerful when seen in the context of how it moves along the length of that cylinder. Along the cosmic string.

To get to this point:) and having shown a Platonic expression of simplices of the sphere, also integration of higher dimension values determined from a monte carlo effect determnation of quantum gravity. John Baez migh have been proud of such a model with such discrete functions?:) But how the heck would you determine the toplogical function of that sphere in higher dimensional vaues other then in nodal point flippings of energy concentration, revealled in that monte carlo model?

Topological consideration would need to be smooth, and without this structure how would you define such collpases in our universe, if you did not consider the blackhole?

So part of the developement here was to understand where I should go with the physics, to point out the evolving consideration in experimentation that would move our minds to consider how such supersymmetrical realities would have been realized in the models of the early universe understanding. How such views would have been revealled in our understanding within that cosmo?

One needed to be able to understand the scale feature of gravity from the very strong to the very weak in order to explain this developing concept of geometry and topological consideration no less then what Einstein did for us, we must do again in some comprehensive model of application.

3 Sphere

What would mathemaics be without artistic expression, trying out it's hand at how such geometrical visions continue to form? Did Escher Gauss and Reimann, see above 3 sphere?

An expression of Salvador Dali perhaps in some religious context, who then redeems himself, as a man and author of artistic expression?

A sphere is, roughly speaking, a ball-shaped object. In mathematics, a sphere comprises only the surface of the ball, and is therefore hollow. In non-mathematical usage a sphere is often considered to be solid (which mathematicians call ball).

More precisely, a sphere is the set of points in 3-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is a positive real number called the radius of the sphere. The fixed point is called the center or centre, and is not part of the sphere itself. The special case of r = 1 is called a unit sphere.



Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number. Here, the choice of number reflects the dimension of the sphere as a manifold.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points
a 1-sphere is a circle
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space

Spheres for n ¡Ý 3 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere. The notation Sn is also often used to denote any set with a given structure (topological space, topological manifold, smooth manifold, etc.) identical (homeomorphic, diffeomorphic, etc.) to the structure of Sn above.

An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold.

So in looking for this mathematical expression what does Gabriele Veneziano allude too in our understanding of what could have come before now and after, in the expression of this universe, that it is no longer a puzzle of what mathematics likes express of itself, now a conceptual value that has encapsulated this math.



Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano


In mathematics, a 3-sphere is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere. A regular sphere, or 2-sphere, consists of all points equidistant from a single point in ordinary 3-dimensional Euclidean space, R3. A 3-sphere consists of all points equidistant from a single point in R4. Whereas a 2-sphere is a smooth 2-dimensional surface, a 3-sphere is an object with three dimensions, also known as 3-manifold.

In an entirely analogous manner one can define higher-dimensional spheres called hyperspheres or n-spheres. Such objects are n-dimensional manifolds.

Some people refer to a 3-sphere as a glome from the Latin word glomus meaning ball.

So as if beginning from some other euclidean systemic pathway of expression, how in spherical considerations could topolgical formation consider Genus figures, if it did not identify the smooth continue reference to cosmoogical events? Where would you test this mathematics if it cannot be used and applicable to larger forms of expression, that might also help to identfy microstates?

The initial process of particle acceleration is presumed to occur in the vicinity of a super-massive black hole at the center of the blazar; however, we know very little about the origin of the jet. Yet it is precisely the region where the most important physics occurs: the formation of a collimated jet of charged particles, the flow of these particle in a narrow cone, and the acceleration of the flow to relativistic velocities.


So in looking at these spheres and their devlopement, one might have missed the inference to it's origination, it's continued expression, and the nice and neat gravitational collpase that signals the new birth of a process? Can it be so simple?

Would it be so simple in the colliders looking for those same blackholes?

Curvature Parameters

How does get this intuitive feeling embedded within thinking if it has not grokked the significance on a cosmological scale?



When one first begins to comprehend the intuitive possibilities the universe can move through, I was was struck, by the coordination of how we could see in terms of non-euclidean prospectives, and find correlation, with what was happening on a cosmological scale.



AS I looked at the the Friedmann Equation the connection to this dynamical movement in the cosmos, revealed itself, when you accepted the move to Reimannian understanding?



It was important that the connections and links to teachers be recognized. For what Gauss himself imparted, was also demonstrated in the work of Einstein, to bring Gaussian curvature along into the dynamical world gravity would reveal of itself when Einstein was completed.

But the Euclidean model stops working when gravity becomes strong

Once it came to understanding the metric and the distance function, between two points a new world was revealed. It became very interesting to see how non-euclidean was lead too, and how the work of GR blended together in a new perspective about the reality we live in. It no longer made sense to think of that space between those two points other then in the mathematical ideas of NCG.

Virtual interactions make the electron charge depend on the distance scale at which is it measured.



How would not derive some sense of this fluctuation if we did not understand the dynamical nature that has been revealed to us? On large scales it seems so easy, while in these micro states, it's all spread out and fuzzy. So at planck length, how would we describe the motions we understand of the spacetime fabric if we change the quantum mechanical description of it?

dS²=c² dT²-dX²

The amount of dark matter and energy in the universe plays a crucial role in determining the geometry of space. If the density of matter and energy in the universe is less than the critical density, then space is open and negatively curved like the surface of a saddle

The Elastic Nature?

As I have explained in a earlier link I am fascinated by the images of bubbles that were demonstrated through a way of thinking of the early universe to arise as Bubble Nucleation.

These images all show the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-fold eversions in the upper left, lower left, upper right, and lower right cornerse, respectively. First we see an early stage, with p fingers growing in the p-fold everion. Next we see an intermediate stage when the fingers have mostly overlapped. Finally we see the four halfway models. For p odd, these are doubly covered projective planes.

If we had understood the early universe to have this continous nature and not have any tearing in it, how would such rotations have moved according to some method, that we might have considered the klein bottle or some other concept, that would lend itself to explain some of the ways and means, such dynamics could have unfold, enfolded and everted in the actions of that same cosmo?

It would be very difficult to speak to probability statistics, if you did not envelope the possibilites in some kind of configuration, or compared it to a Dalton Board. The Bell curve, or the pascal's triangle to consider how something could arise in certain situations? Might we have called the basis for a "new math" to emerge? If we had come to accept the departue point for Euclid's fifth postulate then what has we encouter inthe dynamcial world of Gauss? Einstein includethese calculation in the evolving feature of GR, so how could we not see this developing of a geometry that would lead to smooth and topological considerations?

The statistical sense of Maxwell distribution can be demonstrated with the aid of Galton board which consists of the wood board with many nails as shown in animation. Above the board the funnel is situated in which the particles of the sand or corns can be poured. If we drop one particle into this funnel, then it will fall colliding many nails and will deviate from the center of the board by chaotic way. If we pour the particles continuously, then the most of them will agglomerate in the center of the board and some amount will appear apart the center.

UNderstanding then that such cosmological event could be unfolding in the universe, visually to me, these configurations had to follow some pattern of consideration, or it just didn't make sense that such abstract math in topologies could ever work. So in looking at a previous comparison here the dynamical nature of the orbital seemed a valid comparison not only on a cosmological scale, but on a very small one as well?

A Holographical way of thinking?

Mapping Quark Confinement and The Energy

As I moved through the thinking of those extra dimensions it became apparent to me that the conceptualization of that distance scale was a strange world indeed. How, if we had accept the move to non-euclidean views could we not of accepted the consequences of this move?




Dazzled with the amazing properties of this new mathematical realm, everything seemed a bit magical, as if, experiencing for the first time a taste that is strange indeed? How would I recognize this strange dynamical world, if I had not understood this move to include the geometry that Kaluza and Klien adopted, to gather together another reality of photon engagement with that of gravity?



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

So at the same time you had this distant measure, how could we resolve what was happening between those two points?

Without some supersymmetrical reality(supergravity) how could any point emerge from the brane if it did not recognize the evolution of those dimensions?



So how does this point expand? This is a simple enough question?

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

In the above picture Michael Duff draws our attention too, I was drawn to the same principals that Klein demonstrated in his ideas of projective geometry, as the dimensions are revealed?

IN this effort and recognition of appropriate geometry, I had wondered, that if the same consistancy with which these two had demonstrated the principals, euclidean
postulates fell in line, as a basis of this method of applicabilty? Does one now see this thread that runs through the geometry?

Having accepted the road travelled to GR we have come to recognize the royal road has lead us to a strange world indeed. First it was Reimann with Gauss looking over his shoulder, and Maxwell joining Faraday in this celebration, with Einstein bringing all the happy go lucky, into a fine example of what has been implied by the harmonious nature, structure of strings in concert?



But I am not happy yet. If one could not see what was happening between those two points, what's the use of talking any math, without the co-existance of the physics?


The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This, in fact, also gives rise to quantization of charge, as waves directed along a finite axis can only occupy discrete frequencies. (This occurs because electromagnetism is a U(1) symmetry theory and U(1) is simply the group of rotations around a circle).

Non Euclidean Geometry and the Universe

With Critical density ( Omega ), matter distinctions become apparent, when looking at the computerized model of Andrey Kravtsov.



Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1826 – 1866

Riemannian Geometry, also known as elliptical geometry, is the geometry of the surface of a sphere. It replaces Euclid's Parallel Postulate with, "Through any point in the plane, there exists no line parallel to a given line." A line in this geometry is a great circle. The sum of the angles of a triangle in Riemannian Geometry is > 180°.

To me this is one of the greatest achievements of mathematical structures that one could encounter, It revolutionize many a view, that been held to classical discriptions of reality.

In the quiet achievement of Riemann’s tutorial teacher Gauss, recognized the great potential in his student. On the curvature parameters, we recognize in Gauss’s work, what would soon became apparent? That we were being lead into another world for consideration?



So here we are, that we might in our considerations go beyond the global perspectives, to another world that Einstein would so methodically reveal in the geometry and physics, that it would include the electromagnetic considerations of Maxwell into a cohesive whole and beyond.

The intuitive development that we are lead through geometrically asks us to consider again, how Riemann moved to a positive aspect of the universe?



The activity in string theory and quantum gravity is aimed at developing a quantum theory that incorporates the physics of gravity and is valid down to the smallest length scales, where conventional quantum field theory can no longer be applied. There has been rapid progress in this area in recent years, in part due to work of Princeton faculty and students, and it continues to be a fertile source of research problems.


Friedman Equation What is _pdensity.

What are the three models of geometry? k=-1, K=0, k+1

Negative curvature

Omega=the actual density to the critical density

If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omega_m(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?

If such a progression is understood in the evolution of the geometry raised in non euclidean perspectives, this has in my view raised the stakes on how we percieve the dynamical valuation of a world that we were lead into from GR?

Facing the frontier of cosmological proportions, we soon meet views as demonstrated in the Solvay meetings where the thought experiments plague the relation of Quantum Mechanics. Even though Einstein held his position about the beauty of GR( it's stand alone feature) in it's own right, did not mean that the efforts to quantization had not been considered by him?

Moving to the non-euclidean realm, set up my thinking in terms of gravitational considerations. Dali's example of the tesserack reveals a deeper understanding of this progression to an non-euclidean view that Dali heightened in this aspect of religiousness and God implication, by demonstrating the Crucifixation paintng that he did. Even Escher in his realization, understood that the royal road to geometry has some road(physics) to travel before it could meet his perspective eye.

Fool's Gold

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



However, don't be fooled! The charm of the golden number tends to attract kooks and the gullible - hence the term "fool's gold". You have to be careful about anything you read about this number. In particular, if you think ancient Greeks ran around in togas philosophizing about the "golden ratio" and calling it "Phi", you're wrong. This number was named Phi after Phidias only in 1914, in a book called _The Curves of Life_ by the artist Theodore Cook. And, it was Cook who first started calling 1.618...the golden ratio. Before him, 0.618... was called the golden ratio! Cook dubbed this number "phi", the lower-case baby brother of Phi.

How much wiser are we with the understanding that Curlies Gold told us much about what to look for in that One Thing?



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 is the value of PI, if a "point" on the brane holds previous information about the solid things we see in our universe now? Have we recognized the momentum states, represented by the KK Tower and the value of 1R as it arises from the planck epoch?

The statistical sense of Maxwell distribution can be demonstrated with the aid of Galton board which consists of the wood board with many nails as shown in animation. Above the board the funnel is situated in which the particles of the sand or corns can be poured. If we drop one particle into this funnel, then it will fall colliding many nails and will deviate from the center of the board by chaotic way. If we pour the particles continuously, then the most of them will agglomerate in the center of the board and some amount will appear apart the center. After some period of time the certain statistical distribution of the number of particles on the width of the board will appear. This distribution is called normal Gauss distribution (1777-1855) and described by the following expression: