All Particles of the Standard Model and Beyond

Polchinski Elected Member Of National Academy of Sciences

Polchinski's discovery of D-branes and their properties is, according to the Academy citation, "one of the most important insights in 30 years of work on string theory."

Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

From one mechanic to another

I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

So what things did I learn?

That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.



These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

As a layman, this was proving itself, as I looked at the diversity of the geometrical models choosen to represent that abstract world. See B Field and Hitchins. Genus Figures, and topology, on this site.

More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

IMpressional Minds
If as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

The Reductionistic Process
Is it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?



So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.



So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

So both events involved, "microstate blackhole" recognitions.

Post removed from Peter Woits comment section

In regards to facing nightmares

In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced."

The link was added here now.

If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

Jack has some explaining to do?

Update

(To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)

Anyway. As I was saying.

This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

See:

History of the Universe and the Standard model

Special holonomy manifolds in string theory

So what instigated my topic today and Hypercharge make sits way for me to reconsider, so while doing this the idea of geoemtries and th eway in which we see this uiverse held to the nature of it's origination are moving me to consider how we see in ths geometrical sense.

The resurgence of ideas about the geometries taking place are intriguing models to me of those brought back for viewing in the Sylvester surfaces and B field relations held in context of the models found in the >Wunderkammern.

This paragraph above should orientate perception for us a bit around methods used to see in ways that we had not seen before. This is always very fascinating to me. What you see below for mind bending, helps one to orientate these same views on a surface.



Hw would you translate point on a two dimensional surface to such features on the items of interest on these models proposed?



Part of my efforts at comprehension require imaging that will help push perspective. In this way, better insight to such claims and model methods used, to create insight into how we might see those extra 10 dimensions, fold into the four we know and love.



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

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

If one held such views from the expansitory revelation, that our universe implies at these subtle levels a quantum nature, then how well has our eyes focused not only on the larger issues cosmology plays, but also, on how little things become part and parcel of this wider view? That the quantum natures are very spread, out as ths expansion takes place, they collpase to comsic string models or a sinstantaneous lightning strikes across thei universe from bubbles states that arose from what?

So knowing that such features of "spherical relation" extended beyond the normal coordinates, and seeing this whole issue contained within a larger sphere of influence(our universe), gives meaning to the dynamical nature of what was once of value, as it arose from a supersymmetrical valuation from the origination of this universe? If Any symmetry breaking unfolds, how shall we see in context of spheres and rotations within this larger sphere, when we see how the dynamcial propertties of bubbles become one of the universes as it is today? Genus figures that arise in a geometrodynamcial sense? What are these dynacis within context of the sphere?



So as I demonstrate the ways in which our vision is being prep for thinking, in relation to the models held in contrast to the nature of our universe, how are we seeing, if we are moving them to compact states of existance, all the while we are speaking to the very valuation of the origination of this same universe?



Holonomy (30 Dec 2005 Wiki)

Riemannian manifolds with special holonomy play an important role in string theory compactifications. This is because special holonomy manifolds admit covariantly constant (parallel) spinors and thus preserve some fraction of the original supersymmetry. Most important are compactifications on Calabi-Yau manifolds with SU(2) or SU(3) holonomy. Also important are compactifications on G2 manifolds.

Tiny Bubbles

AS a child, Einsten when given the gift of the compass, immediately reocgnized the mystery in nature? If such a impression could have instigated the work that had unfolded over timein regards to Relativity, then what work could have ever instigated the understanding of the Pea as a constant reminder of what the universe became in the mind of a child, as we sleep on it?

Hills and Valley held in context of Wayne Hu's explanations was a feasible product of the landscape to work with?

'The Princess & The Pea' from 'The Washerwoman's Child'

If Strings abhors infinities, then the "Princess's Pea" was really a creation of "three spheres" emmanating from the "fabric of spacetime?" It had to be reduced from spacetime to a three dimensional frame work?

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.

Was it really fantasy that Susskind was involved in, or was there some motivated ideas held in mathematical structure? People like to talk about him without really understandng how such geometrical propensities might have motivated his mind to consider conjectures within the physics of our world?

Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.

You had to realize that working in these abstractions, such work was not to be abandon because we might have thought such abstraction to far from the tangible thinking that topologies might see of itself?


Poincaré Conjecture Proved--This Time for Real
By Eric W. Weisstein

In the form originally proposed by Henri Poincaré in 1904 (Poincaré 1953, pp. 486 and 498), Poincaré's conjecture stated that every closed simply connected three-manifold is homeomorphic to the three-sphere. Here, the three-sphere (in a topologist's sense) is simply a generalization of the familiar two-dimensional sphere (i.e., the sphere embedded in usual three-dimensional space and having a two-dimensional surface) to one dimension higher. More colloquially, Poincaré conjectured that the three-sphere is the only possible type of bounded three-dimensional space that contains no holes. This conjecture was subsequently generalized to the conjecture that every compact n-manifold is homotopy-equivalent to the n-sphere if and only if it is homeomorphic to the n-sphere. The generalized statement is now known as the Poincaré conjecture, and it reduces to the original conjecture for n = 3.

While it is very dificult for me "to see" how such movements are characterized in those higher spaces, it is not without some understanding that such topologies and genus figures would point to the continuity of expression, as "energy and matter" related in a most curious way? Let's consider the non-discretium way in which such continuites work, shall we?

From one perspective this circle woud have some valuation to the makings of the universe in expression, would identify itself where such potenials are raised from the singular function of the circular colliders. Those extra dimensions had to have some basis to evolve too in those higher spaces for such thinking to have excelled to more then mathematical conjectures?

We can also consider donuts with more handles attached. The number of handles in a donut is its most important topological information. It is called the genus.

It might be expressed in the tubes of KK tower modes of measure? That such "differences of energies" might have held the thinking to the brane world, yet revealled a three dimensional perspective in the higher diemnsional world of bulk. These had to depart from the physics, and held in context?



Clay Institute

If we stretch a rubber band around the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the apple is "simply connected," but that the surface of the doughnut is not. Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.

While three spheres has been generalized in my point of view, I am somewhat perplexed by sklar potential when thinking about torus's and a hole with using a rubber band. If the formalization of Greene's statement so far were valid then such a case of the universe emblazoning itself within some structure mathematically inclined, what would have raised all these other thoughts towards quantum geometry?

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)


Was our thoughts based in a wonderful world, where such purity of math structure became the basis of our expressions while speaking to the nature of the reality of our world?


Bubble Nucleation

Some people do not like to consider the context of universe and the suppositions that arose from insight drawn, and held to possibile scenario's. I like to consider these things because I am interested in how a geometical cosistancy might be born into the cyclical nature. Where such expression might hold our thinking minds.


Science and it's Geometries?


Have these already been dimissed by the physics assigned, that we now say that this scenario is not so likely? Yet we are held by the awe and spector of superfluids, whose origination might have been signalled by the gravitational collapse?

Would we be so less inclined not to think about Dirac's Sea of virtual particles to think the origination might have issued from the very warms water of mother's creative womb, nestled.

Spheres that rise from the deep waters of our thinking, to have seen the basis of all maths and geometries from the heart designed. Subjective yet in the realization of the philosophy embued, the very voice speaks only from a pure mathematical realm, and is covered by the very cloaks of one's reason?

After doing so, they realized that all inflationary theories produced open universes in the manner Turok described above(below here). In the end, they created the Hawking-Turok Instanton theory.

The process is a bit like the formation of a bubble
in a boiling pan of water...the interior of this tiny
bubble manages to turn itself into an infinite open
universe. Imagine a bubble forming and expanding at the
speed of light, so that it becomes very big, very quickly.
Now look inside the bubble.

The peculiar thing is that in such a bubble, space and time
get tangled in such a way that what we would call today's
universe would actually include the entire future of the
bubble. But because the bubble gets infinitely large in
the future, the size of 'today's universe' is actually infinite.
So an infinite,open universe is formed inside a tiny, initially
microscopic bubble.

Developement of Disbelief

As you read, hold on to the thought about stringy/M theory developement.

Richard Denton:

I discovered that it was simply philosophy on its own that had played the very much larger role in the gradual erosion of belief.

This is a interesting statement to me since some scientists might think that to have even included this in our "developing perspective" might have showed immediate signs of weakness? Evil?

As if, math came out of all natural things, on it's own?

So how did such views change us if we did not think about them more critically?

See, I am not sure I like to think that there is "no God" that can be substitued by taking this power of belief outside of ourselves to religions and institutions. Crippling us, as to the empowerment we have for such changes in our own life?

While we had seen the topic of "stringevangelism" introduced, there wasn't this concerted effort to make string as a all empowering "theory of everything( what underlying reality was referred too?)", even though, some would try to "invoke" these Godly powers of discrimmination. As a facist group, that would censor any views contrary to their own, as to what seemed, "stringevangelistic?" :)

It then became the same institution, that it despises? Some might know who I mean here. If I stood up to it, could I change reality as well, as to that this group invokes into society?

Anyway while I used Jo-Annes thread, "A little Bit of Heaven," to highlight this quality of earthly senses?

Topo-sense

Plato:

This intuitive feeling that is generated once math processes are understood are realized in dynamical movement revealled in the brains thinking? Had to arrive from lessons it learnt previously? Pendulums, time clocks, great arcs, and gravity?

I sought to internalize Gr's momentums, with Mecuries orbital patterns, or Hulse and Taylors expanding awareness of other things(gravity). I started to ask myself if this internalization was wrong? Is Topo-sense wrong? As too, intuitive unfoldments of the subject, in regards to Genus figures(holes)? Would it perish too? Revelations, leading to maths used?

Internal developement would have revealled a greater core depth of the realities around us. Which are highly abstract, yet, could have lead to insight and convictions held in astronomy happenings in the cosmo(isomorphic relations?)? So this internalization developed conviction, with the basis of Gr's valuation of quantum mechanical things, to cosmological proportions?

Strings as a model then, that could lead to perspectives with "langangian valuations" not only in terms of supersymmetry(concentration of a all pervading "beginning" that we could resort too,) as I espoused in Andrey Kravtsov computer's model.

That such relations in our philosophical orientation of physics would endure in measure, culminate with "fineness" and valuations of gravity perspectives. Could you do this, without some model?

So, would the "counter of belief in God," be the lesson the valuation of what one holds by introducing atheistic valautions, AS TO ROADS LEADING TO "COMMON SENSE?"

While I used stringy comparison for examination, this leads back again to what models can be used to keep the human beings empowered, without stealing this away from them by such institutionalizations? Continued reflection, thwarted, as to no experimental valuations yet philosphically introduced. You remember the opening statement I used?

I thought about the choices we make then, and the convictions we have. Would this have been irrelevant in our assessments of our own characters? After all, it would be you who walked back into society to think about the Smolins and Susskinds who would debate the essence of the backgrond?? What is understood, and what stringy needs to do?

Music of the Spheres

Strange Geometriesby Helen Joyce

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

I thought I should add the "ascoustic variation" of the struggle for music in the world of "good and evil" as well.

That such "chaos created" in the minds of our youth, would have been frowned upon in Plato's academy.

By such reasonings and understandings of how such sound valuation may have been taken to spherical proportions? Should be no less then the consolidation points, as poincares distribution of eschers angel and demons pictures describe?

What avenues had been less then discribed on those chaldni plates that they had been reduced to dimensional avenues discriptive of the chaldni plates, as a fifth dimensional understanding? Langrangian discription of points L1 or L2, and a visionary context of Sylvestor surfaces as proponents of B field manifestations as part of genus figures with holes?

See:

Angels and Demons

Topology and Early History

Part of the effort here is to outlay the idealization of what Genus figures means and the relationship to string amplitutdes.


A diagram of the Königsberg bridges

Topological ideas are present in almost all areas of today's mathematics. The subject of topology itself consists of several different branches, such as point set topology, algebraic topology and differential topology, which have relatively little in common. We shall trace the rise of topological concepts in a number of different situations.

Part of the difficulties here for me, is understanding exactly what is going on in these higher dimensional places, that string theorists and mathematicians like to venture.


Throughout, I have shown the processes with which a smooth topological feature would have endowed movements like the donut into the coffee cup and wondered, about this idea of Genus figures and how they to become part of the fixtures of the terrain with which mathematicians like to enjoy themselves over coffee?:)

The idealization of string amplitutdes raised cosmological correlations in my mind as well as understanding these harmonics, so the String Amplitutde search was initiated within my blog, to lead one through other idealizationas that become evident for me.

Hodge Conjecture

Interplay between geometry and topology.

One of the things that I am having difficulty with is if I understood the idea of a cosmic string. The understanding would have to imply that the higher dimensions would reveal themselves within the spacetime curvatures of gravity. So I have been looking to understand how the quantum mechanical nature could have ever reduced itself from those higher dimensions in string theory, and revealed themselves within the context of the cosmos that we know works very well with Gravity.



Part of my attempts at comprehending the abtractness with which this geometry evolved, was raised diffrent times within this blog as to whether or not there was a royal road to geometry?

Throughout, I have shown the processes with which a smooth topological feature would have endowed movements like the donut into the coffee cup and wondered, about this idea of Genus figures and how they to become part of the fixtures of the terrain with which mathematicians like to enjoy themselves over coffee?:)



How would this information in regards to the strings, become a viable subject with regards to non-euclidean realms, to have understood where GR had taken us and where QM had difficult combining with GR(gravity).

Large extra dimensions are an exciting new development … They would imply that we live in a brane world, a four-dimensional surface or brane in a higher dimensional spacetime. Matter and nongravitational forces like the electric force would be confined to the brane … On the other hand, gravity in the form of curved space would permeate the whole bulk of the higher dimensional spacetime …. Because gravity would spread out in the extra dimensions, it would fall off more rapidly with distance than one would expect … If this more rapid falloff of the gravitational force extended to astronomical distances, we would have noticed its effect on the orbits of the planets … they would be unstable… However, this would not happen if the extra dimensions ended on another brane not that far away from the brane on which we live. Then for distances greater than the separation of the branes, gravity would not be able to spread out freely but would be confined to the brane, like the electrical forces, and fall off at the right rate for planetary orbits.

Stephen Hawking, Chapter seven

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?