No Extra Dimensions Yet?

Turning back to gravity, the extra-dimensions model stems from theoretical research into (mem)brane theories, the multidimensional successors to string theories (April 1999 p13). One remarkable property of these models is that they show that it is quite natural and consistent for electromagnetism, the weak force and the inter-quark force to be confined to a brane while gravity acts in a larger number of spatial dimensions.
The requirement of correctly reproducing Newton's constant, G, at long distances leads to the size of the extra dimensions in which gravity is free to act being related to the number of extra dimensions.

New physics experience might reveal more dimensions in the Universe than meets the eyeSee Here

Amazing isn't it that EOT-WASH GROUP would consider themselves as challenging the experimental basis of string theory thinking. If one did not see into the nature of that "dynamical world" what value would have ever been reached if there was no separation in the value of the "r distance?" No "varying energy valuation" in the strong force.


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.See Here.

If a "Q to Q" measure is considered and a "active consideration evident" in this exchange of a "r value," then why would they think the gravitational considerations would not have ever made sense in the distances of extra dimensions of 44 micrometres or larger?

By increasing this distance, the gravitational considerations are very important in terms of the energy valuation given as the "q to q" is moved apart. The energy is directly relate to the gravitational considerations?


Image: EOT-WASH GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Discovering extra dimensions with the relatively huge size of a few micrometers would offer spectacular confirmation for string theory, the still unproved body of equations that may unify gravity with the normally incompatible realm of quantum physics. "Even though we haven't seen anything, these results put boundaries on what people can legitimately propose," says experimental physicist and study author Eric Adelberger of the University of Washington. "Testing the inverse square law [meaning Newton's law of gravity] is the bombproof way to look for extra dimensions.

"

some physicists proposed that string theory might cause gravity to grow stronger at such distances if the universe came with relatively big extra dimensions of micrometers in width......Sundrum says that if extra dimensions failed to turn up at that distance, it would likely prune off that branch of string theory.

Newton's inverse-square (1/r2) law

The standard model of particle physics is a self-contained picture of fundamental particles and their interactions. Physicists, on a journey from solid matter to quarks and gluons, via atoms and nuclear matter, may have reached the foundation level of fields and particles. But have we reached bedrock, or is there something deeper? Savas Dimopoulos

While in the post previous to this I gave some indication of the gravity from the cosmological point of view, I then took it down to the particle collisions. I again reiterate this, in this post as well.


Source-detector configuration for the 1-m 1/r² test

Newton's inverse-square (1/r²) law is a cornerstone of General Relativity. However, this law has been challenged by many modern theories of gravity and particle physics. The supergravity and unified field theories often run into a new short-range force, with an accompanying new particle, which should appear as a violation of the 1/r² law. More recently, a possible violation of the 1/r² law in the range below 1 mm was suggested by string theories with extra dimensions.

Gravity: Another Example of a 1/R² Law

Two masses at a given distance place equal and opposite forces of attraction on one another. The magnitude of this force of attraction is given by:




where G is the universal gravitation constant (6.67 X 10^-11 Nm²/kg²), m₁ is the mass of the first object in kilograms, m₂ is the mass of the second object in kilograms, and r is the distance between the centers of the two masses, in meters.

It is not without thinking here that what you thought of the "microstate blackhole," could have found it's relevance in the temperatures reached, when seen at this level?


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.

The ideal experimental test of this new feature of QCD would be to study the flux tube of figure 1 directly by anchoring a quark and antiquark several femtometres apart and examining the flux tube between them. In such ideal circumstances, one of the characteristics of the gluonic flux tube would be the model-independent spectrum shown in figure 2. The excitation energy is p/r because the flux tube's mass is entirely due to its stored energy. There are two initially excited longest wavelength vibrations with identical energies because the motion of the flux tube is in the two symmetrical dimensions perpendicular to its length.

You ever hear of the term, "you can't hit the broad side of a barn?" WEll lets think about this when it comes to the measures of femtometres and such. Classically old, it was not witout some direction in thinking that one could be taken down to certain measures for those same considerations. Barn Yard?

Origin of the (classified) barn

In the luminosity lexicon, a picobarn is one trillionth (10-12) of a barn, and a femtobarn is one quadrillionth (10-15) of a barn... but what's a barn? The distinctive and amusing term originated with two Purdue University physicists working on the Manhattan Project in 1942—and it was classified information by the US government until after World War II.

A History of Physics at Purdue (Gartenhaus, Tubis, Cassidy, and Bray) cites the July 1972 issue of Physics Today in which Marshall Halloway and Charles Baker write of tossing around ideas over dinner until arriving at "barn" to describe the typical nuclear cross section of 10-24 cm2, the effective target area that a nuclear particle represents in a collision. Dining in the Purdue Memorial Union, back in Lafayette, Indiana, Halloway and Baker dismissed "Oppenheimer" and "Bethe" as candidates, then considered John Manley, director of the Purdue group at Los Alamos. They decided "Manley" was too long, and then, as the authors put it in the Physics Today article to:

So here we are looking at what the EOT-WASH GROUP is doing? What is "compactification" in line with any thinking, that the world around us from a cosmological point of view is large(large circle), and that amidst it's reality, exists this finer world of particulars that "we'd only imagine" while the measures to it's finest(small circle) was produce and then energies assigned.

It would be as if you looked at the cosmos and never thought about it constituents "bits and pieces," which make up those cosmological processes. Yet, for me, "circles within circles" would have made me wonder which circle represented which part of the views at any one time, whilst we speak about these energies from one perspective to the next.

Savas Dimopoulos: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.

.....and more here for how perspectve can change once you give a direction in which to think about.

Savas Dimopoulos:At first we faced denial. We had deliberately used the word "sub-millimeter" in our first paper. Physicists were surprised, to say the least, that such a thing was not already excluded experimentally. I remember a stage in 1998 when colleagues wondered if we had not forgotten some crucial experiment. We were not discouraged. No! We gave talks on the ideas, and by July 1998 had analyzed the laboratory and cosmological constraints. That paper marked a sea-change in opinion: physicists began to think this was an interesting idea. By the fall of 1998 we were showing how to do real physics. Now several study groups are taking us very seriously: the high citation rates speak for themselves.
Personally I am not surprised by the reaction. Revolutionary ideas go through a cycle: denial, followed by "okay it is consistent but can you do anything with it?" and finally, once you show how to do real physics, you may get the third phase where many physicists become interested in the field. The same thing happened to me and Giorgi back in 1981 when we first proposed the supersymmetric extension of the standard model of particle physics. Initially there were the usual skeptics but now it is completely accepted.
Oddly, for me, the major competitor to these proposals for extra dimensions is the supersymmetry extension. But let's recall some of the disadvantages of the standard model. First, it shuts out gravity. Second, it has 18 free parameters, many of them very small. Third, the vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude larger than what you would naively guess from the standard model.
Proposing extra dimensions to space is a drastic step. But once you have the extra space you can attribute the smallness of some quantities to the statement that their origin is somewhere far away inside space, just as an astronomer might attribute the faintness of a galaxy to its large distance. For example, maybe the smallness of the electron mass arises because its origin is far away inside the extra dimensions.
My view is that both of the big ideas I have worked on are testable in the next decade by LHC. The two frameworks have complementary features. I'm greatly looking forward to the outcome

Make sure you look at the "compactification" label to the right index

Gravity Free Environment on Earth

It's taken some time from a layman perspective to try and "place this experiment" in a setting that helps orientate views. Well, at least in my case. :)

So here is a "guide below" that may seem trivial to some, yet, directed to the "microperspective" on this experiment, speak to cosmology as well. While it may seem easy from a "cosmological standpoint" gravities "effect" is of some importance in "condense matter views."

A "Top/down approach" pointing you toward LHC and the "anomaly of relativity" in the perfect fluid, seems like going "full circle?"

See:"Cosmic Variance"

Anyway to the essence of what has been instigated by the post of Seans, and what came about from the "Aerogel and Stardust" Post.


Microgravity Science Glove Box-The MSG will enable astronauts on board the ISS to perform a wide variety of materials, combustion, fluids and biotechnology experiments as well as investigations in the microgravity environment. It can also accommodate minor repairs and servicing of hardware requiring a controlled working environment. The facility offers users a wide range of innovative, utilization alternatives from manual control by astronauts via laptop computers to fully automated and remote control from Earth (telescience). A permanent data exchange link with ground stations is also ensured.The MSG will be integrated and used in the US Destiny Laboratory for a projected operational period of ten years.ESA is planning to use the facility for European experiments. The first time MSG will be used by a European astronaut to perform European experiments will be during a Soyuz taxi flight mission in October 2002. ESA's Belgian astronaut Frank De Winne will perform four different experiments in the MSG in the field of protein crystallization, zeolites crystallization, combustion and fluid science.
Frank De Winne works with the Microgravity Science Glovebox(MSG)Credits: ESA

Why is it we cannot create this environment, other then, the method described in terms of the drop tower, or, out in space? What ways do you know that such simulation can be developed to move the ideas of product development "done there in space." To make it feasible to create the condense matter states that are purer free from the effect of gravity on earth.

“On Earth, buoyancy continuously deforms and moves fluids in complex manners, making it difficult to study how materials that solidify from the melt form semiconductors and other products,” said Dr. Aleksandar Ostrogorsky, the SUBSA principal investigator who also teaches and conducts research at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. “In microgravity, the fluids are almost stagnant, resembling solids. The absence of motion makes it easier to observe and mathematically describe what is occurring when the crystals are melted, and how the materials solidify to form a new crystal.”

The idea occurred to me today to find a way in which to "create the environment" that is conducive to perfecting the "purity of alignment of substances" in a gravity free environment. I mentioned the aerogel in the previous article and how developing that product in space gives the product superior qualities, that one might not have here on earth.


Aircraft: A two-engine turbofan aircraft similar to the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9

A typical mission is 2 to 3 hours long and consists of 40 to 50 parabolas. These parabolas can be flown in succession or with short breaks between maneuvers to reconfigure test equipment. The Reduced Gravity Office provides scheduling, test coordination, and in-flight direction for the test programs.

So, we create the conditions for it. Whether it be the Space Shuttle, the Airplane or the Miniature Drop Tower.

NASA's "Weightless Wonder" KC-135a Reduced Gravity Laboratory

By comparing the results from fuel vaporization in a reduced-gravity environment with those under normal conditions, the students aim to gain a better understanding of how fuel droplets behave under different conditions to optimize the fuel injection process. The findings may be used in helping promote changes in engine design while improving efficiency and reducing emissions.

By understanding the process from "space to earth" we see where ingenuity of mind applies the differences of "time clocks" and such.


As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown above, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.

In a manner that "it's effects" in relation to gravity may be considered from a cosmological and micro-gravity perspective, in relation to "Inverse Square law( I use sound in the example, but click on the image provided)" and "Inverse Fourth Power Law."


This miniature drop tower is used by Microgravity man and others to demonstrate the effects of reduced gravity on physical and chemical phenomena that are normally masked by Earth's gravity.

So here we are "to the experiment" in a microperspective that is currently being explored.

Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm

Please don’t get too excited yet about rumors concerning the Eot-Wash test of the 1/r^2 law. We can exclude gravitational strength (|alpha|=1) Yukawa violations of the 1/r^2 law for lambda>80 microns at 95% confidence. It is true that we are seeing an anomaly at shorter length scales but we have to show first that the anomaly is not some experimental artifact. Then, if it holds up, we have to check if the anomaly is due to new fundamental physics or to some subtle electromagnetic effect that penetrates our conducting shield. We are now checking for experimental artifacts by making a small change to our apparatus that causes a big change in the Newtonian signal but should have essentially no effect on a short-range anomaly. Then we will replace our molybdenum detector ring with an aluminum one. This will reduce any signal from interactions coupled to mass, but will have little effect on subtle electromagnetic backgrounds. These experiments are tricky and measure very small forces. It takes time to get them right. We will not be able to say anything definite about the anomaly for several months at least.

Update:

Check out Backreaction's Water in Zero Gravity

Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics. Richard Feynman

I was lead into this subject of Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin's book called, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." As a lay person reading what our scientist's have to say, I have a vested interest in what can start one off and find, that changes are being made to the synopsis first written. Did I understand his position correctly from the very beginning? I'll have to go back over my notes.

But with this format now I have the opportunity to...ahem... get it..directly from the horses mouth(no disrespect intended and written based on knowing how to read horses). As I said, I tried early on to see how the situation of string theory could be refuted. I "instigated" as a comparative front for Lubos Motl and Peter Woit to speak from each of their positions. I had to disregard "the tones" set by either, as to the nature of whose what and how ignorant one might be, and comparatively, one might be to intelligent design? To get "some evidence" of why string theory might not be such a good idea?

Now I believe this is a more "civil situation" that such a format has been proposed and that Lee Smolin can speak directly. As well as, "further information" supplied to counter arguments to Lee's position.


A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

Jacques Distler :

This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.

Just a reminder about my skills. While I do things like carpetry, plumbing, electrical, I do not call myself a Carpenter, a Plumber or a Electrician. Nor shall I ah-spire to be more then I'm not, as I am to old this time around.

Greg Kuperberg:

The string theorists are physicists and this is their intuition. Do you want physical intuition or not?

Okay, Smolin is also a physicist and his intuition is radically different from that of the strings theorists. So who is right?

Yet, least I not read these things, can I not decipher "the jest" while it not being to technical? Shall I call it a Physicists intuition or I will only call my intuition what it is?

Jacques Distler:

When most people (at least, most quantum field theorists) use the term “finiteness,” they are referring to UV finiteness.

While the things above talked about from Jacques are served by hindsight, "the jest" follows what comes after this point.

The Jest of the Problem?

My present research concerns the problem of topology changing in string theory. It is currently believed that one has to sum over all string backgrounds and all topologies in doing the functional integral. I suspect that certain singular string backgrounds may be equivalent to topology changes, and that it is consequently only necessary to sum over string backgrounds. As a start I am investigating topology changes in two-dimensional target spaces. I am also interested in Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although much has been learned, some basic questions remain, and I hope to be able at least to understand the simpler of these questionsStanley Mandelstam-Professor Emeritus Particle Theory

Gina has asked questions in context of "academic excellence" in relation to what is being seen in relation to string theory. Of course we thank Clifford for providing the format for that discussion.

“The Trouble With Physics,” by Lee Smolin, Index page 382, Mandelstam, Stanley, and string theory finiteness, pages 117,187, 278-79, 280, 281, 367n14,15

For reference above.

Gina:

I raised 16 points that I felt Lee’s arguments were not correct or problematic. This is an academic discussion and not a public criticism, and I truly think that such critique can be useful, even if I am wrong on all the 16 points.

Three of my 16 points were on more technical issues, but I feel that I can understand Lee’s logical argument even without understanding the precise technical nature of “finiteness of string theory” (I do have a vague impression of what it is.) I think that my interpretation of this issue is reasonable and my critique stands.

I find this interesting based on what information has been selected to counter the arguments that Lee Smolin used to support his contentions about what is being defined in string theory.


Stanley Mandelstam Professor Emeritus Research: Particle Physics

My research concerns string theory. At present I am interested in finding an explicit expression for the n-loop superstring amplitude and proving that it is finite. My field of research is particle theory, more specifically string theory. I am also interested in the recent results of Seiberg and Witten in supersymmetric field theories.

So of course, here, I am drawn to the content of his book and what is the basis of his argument from those four pages. I hope my explanation so far summarizes adequately. For the lay person, this information is leading perspective as to the basis of the argument.

Lee Smolin:

Perturbative finiteness is a major element of the claim of string theory as a potential theory of nature. If it is not true then the case for string theory being a theory of nature would not be very strong.

-Perturbative finiteness has not been proven. There is evidence for it, but that evidence is partial. There is a complete proof only to genus two, which is the second non-trivial term in an infinite power series, each term of which has to be finite. The obstacles to a complete proof are technical and formidable; otherwise we would certainly have either a proof or a counterexample by now. There is some progress in an alternative formulation, which has not yet been shown to be equivalent to the standard definition of string theory.

-This is not an issue of theoretical physicists rigor vrs mathematical rigor. There is no proof at either level. There is an intuitive argument, but that is far from persuasive as the issue is what happens at the boundaries of super-moduli space where the assumption of that argument breaks down. In the formulation in which there is a genus two result it is not clear if there is an unambiguous definition of the higher order terms.

Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

It should be known here and here that all along I have been reacting to Lee Smolin's new book. The title itself should have given this away?

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

So of course knowing the basis of my thought development is a "good idea" as the links show what spending our dollars can do, having bought what our good scientist Lee Smolin has written.

There is a little "tit for tat" going on right now, but I think the point has been made sufficiently clear as to where Gina's thoughts in regards to the points on Finiteness is being made beyond 2?

In these lectures, recent progress on multiloop superstring perturbation theory is reviewed. A construction from first principles is given for an unambiguous and slice-independent two-loop superstring measure on moduli space for even spin structure. A consistent choice of moduli, invariant under local worldsheet supersymmetry is made in terms of the super-period matrix. A variety of subtle new contributions arising from a careful gauge fixing procedure are taken into account.

Yes I think I have to wait now to see if the discussion can now move beyond the first three points raised? Hopefully Lee will respond soon?

How do you fight sociology

Because this by any of the leaders of string theory. it was left to someone like me, as a quasi "insider" who had the technical knowledge but not the sociological commitment, to take on that responsibility. And I had done so because of my own interest in string theory, which I was working on almost exclusively at the time. Nevertheless, some string theorists regarded the review as a hostile act.

The trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin, Page 281

I have discovered one of Lee Smolin's objection to a string theorist. They are only craftsman, and not seers.

Three Ring Circus: Dark Energy

"Observations always involve theory."Edwin Hubble

Hopefully some day, I will be accepted as a student of this universe, and it's intrigue?



Sometimes it is necessary to understand that having come to different consclusion about the geometry of this universe that underneath the complexity of these equations a schematic drawing of reality is unfolding? I think this is where Einstein's success came from? So assume from this point a supersymmetrical view of the universe?

You can check out Wayne Hu's site for further info on computer simulation below


A simulation of large-scale structure
formation

As the Universe expands, galaxies become more and more distant from each other. For an observer, such as ourselves, it appears that all other galaxies fly away from us. The further the galaxy, the faster it appears to recede. This recession affects the light emitted by the distant galaxies, stretching the wavelengths of emitted photons due to the Doppler redshift effect. The distance between galaxies is proportionalto the measure of this effect 1+z, where z is what astronomers call redshift. The redshift can be measured for each object if its spectrum is measured.

All three geometrical positions demonstrated below each held the cosmologists to views of our universe. But we now know that Einstein may have been right. What allows us to think this way?

Sorry about the quality of artistic rendition. But you get the jest right?

Why is the universe speeding up, and what does this mean geometrically? There has to be some physics going on that would explain this? What may this be?

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

If we look back to the measures of supernova Ia measure and find that in that time measure there were differences in the inflationary aspect of that universe, then, the universe today would have allowed us to consider the universe quite capable of changing it's speed of inflation.

While indeed we had held to inverse square law in our assumptions, what shall we do now? As you know, spending a couple of years on my own, I am learning, and yes, it shows sometimes. The "idea back then" presented by Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. "This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems," is what was understood in any theoretical development by scientists then and today?

Inverse Fourth Power Law


Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University

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.

Also, I wouldn't one to think that the experimental process had been defunct what we are doing with Cosmic ray collision processes, to not include it with what the LHC is doing as well. Not only have we created the conditions for it in LHC we recognize as a natural process.

While we know of the components of our universe distributed we understand that their is a part of this whole thing that is casing some questions about what we had thought held to the big bomb's inverse square law rules.

What is causing the Speed increase?

While indeed the layman here speculates, it made more sense if we can now explain what is going on. It has been a long journey in terms of comprehension development but I must say it has been rewarding.



So while indeed I show cosmos particle showers here, it is to point out something that helps to fuel the idea behind the speeding up and slowing down of the universe? Cross over production demonstrate in LHC serves also to speak to the fluctuations in "differing speeds of inflation" in our cosmos?

The "crossover" is a point in the collision process of LHC. So by creating these conditions in the LHC, we have effectively recognized where the "new physics" will emerged from. Also, it presents the opportunity for the "first time here" to address what the effects of the LHC will do for us in terms of what has been presented in terms of the dark energy announced below.



So as close as we came to discerning the mass of the neutrino, what have we now come to know? That their could be "a form" of dark matter? The "point here" was to look for the crossover that was taking place and presenting the opportunities for "new physics" to emerge.

The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos.

I have some "thought bubbles" percolating to the surface awareness of my mind(a philosopher?), so we will have to see what strange brew materializes. This is a post in developmental mode.

Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that dark energy is not a new constituent of space, but rather has been present for most of the universe's history. Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate. Investigators used Hubble to find that dark energy was already boosting the expansion rate of the universe as long as nine billion years ago. This picture of dark energy is consistent with Albert Einstein's prediction of nearly a century ago that a repulsive form of gravity emanates from empty space. Data from Hubble provides supporting evidence to help astrophysicists to understand the nature of dark energy. This will allow them to begin ruling out some competing explanations that predict that the strength of dark energy changes over time.

The title itself of this blog post is not to make fun of what is happening in cosmology right now with the new announcement today. It is about "forcing the mind" to look at "Friedman's equation" in each of the rings. Now the thought is the "whole show" is the Einstein cosmsological constant circus and entertainment, that is happening simultaneously.

Yet it is the idea of the "oscillating nature" behind the geometrical principals that is what I am speculating about.

But thanks to good professor below there is an more in depth explanation shared.



Maybe with the development of the vision, "beyond the spacetime" we had come to know and love, we have now come to a unique point in time? That we understand the greater "depth of the universe" is now open for questions about it's inherent nature?

Part of Facing the Trouble With Physics

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics. Richard Feynman

Faced with the task of showing the connection between string theory and reductionistic consideration is quite a task, as I am sure in most eyes? To me it just seems that everytime we adjust our view and include new views, what shall we say of "gamma ray detection" when we look at high energy photons describing the early universe for us?



Hey, it makes my heart jump too.

Here is a case, with which I like to make my point. Having someone corrected makes it that much better now to make comparisons like I do. The simple point of "order" enlightened greatly the situation for us, in what I am exemplifying here. We wil not forget the paper offered up after, in that comment thread either. Thanks

A realization 1; 2; 3 that QGP at RHIC is not a weakly coupled gas but rather a strongly coupled liquid has lead to a paradigm shift in the field. It was extensively debated at the “discovery” BNL workshop in 2004 4 (at which the abbreviation sQGP was established) and multiple other meetings since.

In the intervening three years we had to learn a lot, some new some from other ranches of physics which happened to have some experience with strongly coupled systems. Those range from quantum gases to classical plasmas to string theory. In short, there seem to be not one but actually two difficult issues we are facing. One is to understand why QGP at T ∼ 2Tc is strongly coupled, and what exactly it means.

In Extracting Beauty From Chaos I am recognizing this depth of perception enhancement that is supplied by JoAnne of Cosmic Variance. Would you rather look at "Seans moon" in gamma?

CERN planned a global-warming experiment in 1998?

Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.

What shall I say to you as SNO investigated the "cerenkov effect" from the cosmos ray particle collisions? Shall I speak about the "weather predictions" that arise. This is a interference and a "weak measure" of what is fast becoming the thought in my mind of the diversity of global painting, to include, that blue light as each of the detectors "pick" the overall pattern of high energy exchanges in the detectors as inherent image understanding. It has been transcribed from the "sun's energy value" and applied to high energy considerations?

"Atmospheric" neutrinos, produced by interactions of cosmic ray particles with the earth's atmosphere, might be useful for studying the properties of neutrinos. But if you're hunting sources of neutrinos in the universe, atmospheric neutrinos are nothing but noise.

Now, I may reference Glast indications here in the experimental validation of those high energy photons, gamma ray indication is a wonderful jesture to extending the depth of perception, as I have tried to do here by helping Q see the relevance of the quantum dynamical perception. From ,the beginning of this universe.

So we see where the " Window of the universe" has helped me to see in ways that we were not accustomed. It is "the physics" that has taken us there.

So, while the picture of JoAnnes is highlighted, the lesser of the views is the "gamma ray detection" while I have pointed to the neutrino here in experimentation.

Should we loose sight of what the KK tower exemplifies?



I am sorry about the "dead link picture to topology" but blogger does not go back to 2004 so that I can adjust it.

Now why would I then reference "quantum gravity" behind the picture of the KK tower, and the information about topology? Possibly, that we have for the first time thought here that the Navier-Stokes equations could have been applied at a fundamental level while thinking of what the QGP has given us, as we witness "cerenkov radiation" from a long line of reductionistic reasoning? Is this worth a million from the Clay Instituted by generalization alone?:)

If not, at least, if held in line with lagrangian views of gravitonic perceptions in the bulk as we phyically see the relation between the sun and earth?

It is thus my mind has been held to the idea of the "conical flows[Volcanos, to jet engines in analogy of the laval nozzle]" as the energy is released for the dissemmination from the collider of nature enhanced, to all that follows from the cosmic particle interactions. Right to the neutrinos resulting from the fluidity of the QGP pertaining to viscosity?

What was not present before? Muon detectors hmmmm..... and the road from muon neutrinos too?? What am I missing here?

The muons are stopped by the rock. Impervious to all such obstacles, the muon neutrinos will leave the CERN tunnels and streak through the rock on their 732 kilometre journey to Italy.

Hold that picture of JoAnnes, while you think of Glast. In the determinates of the gamma ray detection, we have therefor faced the "Trouble with Physics?":)

BigFoot: The Anomalistic Reality?

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Thomas Kuhn

What can we say to those who practice science and have been told, no anomalistic conditions can exist in reality? How will they "act" when they have been shaken at the very roots, assuming, such a thing can happen to them as a "observer" of what is "real" to them?



What "if" their illusions have taken hold of them? What if, they jump into a river? Scientists are not like this? They see "everything?":)OuI! Non? They all looking for "truth" just like you, Lee Smolin. There are no causalities?

Nature in Analog Models

In condensed matter, one can construct systems where the propagation of long wavelength phonons (sound waves) is very similar to the propagation of a scalar field in a curved Lorentzian spacetime. Such systems are called 'analog models'. It is even possible to construct analogies to black holes in this manner, where the phonons that travel past a certain point cannot return. For example, consider a fluid where long wavelength phonons in the fluid propagate with speed cs, which is analogous to the speed of light in these models. Now put this fluid in a pipe and change the shape of the pipe such that the speed v of the fluid is faster than cs in one section and slower in an adjacent section. A phonon can travel "back against the current" only up to a certain point, where the the fluid speed equals cs. After that the fluid flow carries it down the pipe. This point in the pipe therefore mimics a black hole event horizon, from which nothing can escape. Other black hole features such as Hawking radiation are also present in these models. Since these models give an example of a system that has a fundamental structure at very short distances (where the fluid description breaks down), yet has a pseudo-Lorentz invariance at long distances.

So forget about paradigmal change, and Kuhn's perspective about revolutonary change? A precursor to how things have always been done, now change, to become? Such an example is needed to push perspective unless you want to stay the way you have always been?

Evidence of Dis-ease?



Have we gotten so far to assume "the sickness" had indeed been caused by such theoretics and a "ventured mysticism," that the fault lied in those who venture forth and offer perspective and some who lacked visional meaning?

So as a "painter" Dali added "dimension" to the tesserack of our talks?:)

The artists begun to believe in the "mystical reality of life" and in so having succumbed to the death of all that has been forsaken(education), it will be strings that will lie at the root cause of this troubling disease?

What "seeing" has overtaken all that we have currently surmized. Is it such an artist of people who help free us of our rigidity?

I am trying to be sensitive as well here.

Bigfoot Toe Analogy

Backreaction: Lee Smolin's Trouble with Physics

BEE said:

Last night I had a nightmare! Bigfoot knocked at my door and wanted to talk to me about the existence of the string theory landscape. Still on east-coast time, I wiped off the sweat from my forehead but couldn't fall asleep again. I switched on my laptop, and decided its time to post the review on Lee Smolin's new book.

I found this a very interesting perspective by "B" on the "Theory of Everything" and how this can manifest in the deeper part of the subconcious mind. Of course the mind tries to deal with the incredibility of the world? How shall we come to deal with it's anomalies, if "repeatability" will not sanction the observer?

The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants.

QGP tunnelling? So where are these times being presented? What is accounting for the conditions which allow for such tunnelling? A cosmological preview perhaps which allows for "new physics" to emerge?

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.

What things will shock the scientist? Change the "foundational basis" of thinking about the quantum reality?

The affect these things(?) can have on any mind is amazing, and of course, getting all the information is very important(observing what is wrong), so, we can assess what the heck is going on?

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

What is happening in the trouble minds of the scientists as we have come to learn of their struggles to deal with the anomalistic(animalistic)world? :)The Jaquar, the elephant(how shall we describe quantum gravity)?

Maybe it is a joke of "incredibility to some" knowing more then what we lay people know? Yet, with all that has been said here, where will you bury your experience? How shall it now manifest into your life? What will now "motivate" your science?



"Diamagnetic situation" and what creates these holes in what runs consistently, and we see where such instances "float" the disc. How strange, had you not have arisen from the tribal forest life? To view the situations of all "science life" to see and know more then what taken for granted as thplane flew over head on first take?

Einstein when given the compass saw something strange in his youth? We know better now what that was. All "lay people" are in their youth? All "lay people" can learn? As a "lay person" I will listen very hard to what you are saying.

Fantastic journies



A flight between "heaven and Earth?" Some cherish the Eagle for seeing.

"Warren Seagull" is a wonderful bird? :) Parodies, will break us free?

Project Satellite Energy Exchange (SEE)

December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Tony Smith:

As to the time of Feynman soving the QED problem, in 1941 (according to Mehra’s Feynman biography The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford 1994)) Feynman had the inspiration from Dirac’s paper of using the Lagrangian method, which led to Feynman’s 1942 Ph.D. thesis. As to that thesis, Mehra says “… Feynman mentioned that “the problem of the form that relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, take from this point of view, remains unsolved. …”. So, Feynman’s Shelter Island relativistic QED solution was developed after his 1942 Ph.D. thesis.

I must admit this morning, I woke up with some questions around non gravitational effects, and how we would see this in relation to the two body problem. Now again, I reiterate, that as a student, I am going to make mistakes, but I am equally enthralled with the idea that a "channel of movement" can exist in our perceptions, where high energy considerations where I had previously thought only the strong gravitatinal influences could exist. Now I know there is more to this then previously thought and I lay out the perception built over this

Scientific relevance of the Equivalence Principle

It is possible to ascribe two conceptually different kinds of masses to a body: an inertial mass and a gravitational mass. The inertial mass is the proportionality factor between a force (any kind of force) applied to the body and the acceleration it acquires in response to it in an inertial laboratory.The gravitational mass is a measurement of the property of the body to attract gravitationally anyother body (gravitational active mass), or to be gravitationally attracted by any other body(gravitational passive mass). Assuming the validity of the action−reaction principle (which leads toconclude that the center of mass of an isolated system must move with constant velocity in aninertial frame of reference) also implies that the gravitational passive and active mass of a bodymust be the same. Since both concepts refer to the same physical interaction, this result appears to be quite natural. The gravitational mass is the analog in a gravitational field, of the electric chargein an electric field −it can be viewed as a gravitational charge− while it has no apparent relation (in spite of the name) with the concept of inertial mass

Current experiments would have to say that our undertanding has changed a bit, by what we have currently and experimentally understood in our involvement as a measure of RHIC production, as philosphical endeavors to change what we now know?

Gravity is the missing link in Grand Unification.

Because of our uniquely poor knowledge of gravity--the weakest of all known forces-- and because gravity must have a key role in any Grand Unification theory, many aspects of gravity must be understood in greater depth and precision.

A SEE mission would improve our knowledge of a number of gravitational parameters and effects which are needed to test unification theories and various modern theories of gravity.

Science Objectives of Project SEE:

Test the inverse-square law at separations of
meters the radius of the Earth

Test the equivalence principle by composition differences at these separations

Test for time variation of G

Test for anisotropy of space and other post-Einsteinian effects

In this regard then, Langrangian perspectve in the Sun Earth relation, had some interesting perspective developements that bring satellite travel into perspective, so too our energy consumptions, for extended deep space travel, more then likely as we now "see" these relations.



Yes, I had indeed created some of the understanding that arises from Time Variable measures, and how we now percieve the earth. Not as some illustrous pearl that was the first images of mind, as John Glenn peered upon this planet, but now, through understanding and measure, we "see" the earth in new ways.



Not only having understood the lagrangian perspectve, I found some relevance to how we now "see" in the cosmo, but here now too, I can speak on the "WMAP mapping system" as a functionable reality of this lagrangian perspective, being pointed out in those same maps?

Dr Mark Haskins

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phemonenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

Sure, let's be true to ourselves and others, for sure.:)

Increase in Output of Inverse Square Law Calculatons ?

Oh my poor layman brain. It hurts.

String theory and the crisis in particle physics by Bert Schroer

The third point of the list is perhaps the most serious one. A theory which has in more than 30 years been unable to get its relation to physics straightened out is presented to physics students as a theory of everything which supersedes QFT before their critical faculties have been strengthened by learning about the concepts and open problems of the most successful theory of particle physics.

When is enough, enough? I think all the warnngs have been heard and the continued barage of statements and genralizations enough to make one sick.



Don't worry Lubo about the context of statements ancestroy or otherwise. As to what you might have wrritten on the blackboard about strings, and what Einstein might have written instead.

An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.-Srinivasa Ramanujan

For me, Ramanujan's statement was really clear. Although, it(math) manifested in the dream, the langauge spoken was the recognition of the source through which mathematics would make itself known to the world. First Principle. If one was listening what was emerging then? Ramanujan might have been so engrossed in math, that such an insight was the key to the open doorway with which quantun grvaity would now not become destitute.

So focused are the many in math that taking the time from all it's calculations, by a quiet strean, or sitting in nature's presence, it all comes together in a "flash of insight."

You have to find the conditions that will speak to theorectical valuation. If such a wide sweeping generalization is levelled at the "mathematical field in question," then, how shall you ever know what this model could have lead one too, in comprehension?

Will we have lacked sufficient knowledge that one might have never had seen it excell beyond the confines of bias and opinion?

Geometrical insight is greater then the axiomization indicated, was from other thoughts of Dirac, and not just the mathematical statements assigned? Such inclination to a quantum perspective and dynamical valuation, of what GR is assigned in curvature, was taken down to the ideas of what signaled the curvature indicators with regards to high energy considerations?

Inverse Fourth Power Law

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.

In context of a "complete geometrical process(including microperspectve processes)" how is this possible? It's "motivation" from the gravitatinal collapse, cosmologically is well understood? Analogies in the Laval nozzle, would have been capable of seeing superfuid anomalies occuring that are "counter intuitive" at such extreme temperatures? Yet a channel is provide for the increase in energy values as the output is increased?

Again supefluid states would have to be considered here, and the output generated? What else could it be?

Haines’ explanation theorizes that Z’s magnetic energies create microturbulences that increase the kinetic energies of ions caught in the field’s grip. Already hot, the extra jolt of kinetic energy then produces increased heat, as ions and their accompanying electrons release energy through friction-like viscous mixing even after they should have been exhausted.

Mind you this is from 2001

Stanford's Savas Dimopoulos:
New Dimensions in Theoretical Physics

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.

And from the same article. Persepctive has now been changed. We do not discard what has already been built up.

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.

So. What value when looking at the Z Machine with such theoretical speculation?

Awareness of counter intuitive anomalies present in such development of the supefluids? Forces us to consider how "bulk manifestion values" are increased? Where did this "extra energy" come from?

See:

The Z Machine

Visualization: Changing Perspective

Acoustic Hawking Radiation

What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes? by Renaud Parentani

The study of acoustic black holes has been undertaken to provide new insights about the role of high frequencies in black hole evaporation. Because of the infinite gravitational redshift from the event horizon, Hawking quanta emerge from configurations which possessed ultra high (trans-Planckian) frequencies. Therefore Hawking radiation cannot be derived within the framework of a low energy effective theory; and in all derivations there are some assumptions concerning Planck scale physics. The analogy with condensed matter physics was thus introduced to see if the asymptotic properties of the Hawking phonons emitted by an acoustic black hole, namely stationarity and thermality, are sensitive to the high frequency physics which stems from the granular character of matter and which is governed by a non-linear dispersion relation. In 1995 Unruh showed that they are not sensitive in this respect, in spite of the fact that phonon propagation near the (acoustic) horizon drastically differs from that of photons. In 2000 the same analogy was used to establish the robustness of the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations in inflationary models. This analogy is currently stimulating research for experimenting Hawking radiation. Finally it could also be a useful guide for going beyond the semi-classical description of black hole evaporation.

I am held to a state of profound thinking when I thnk about Einstein in a dream I had. Where his satisfaction was raised, as a surpize, as I listen to the very sound of ice in a glass jug as I slowly turned it? From it, a certain recognition by Einstein held him in amazement as this sound seem to satisfy what he was so long search for in his answers. Yes it is a dream, but this set the stage from what I had been doing previous as I was thinking about the Webber bars and the way research was moving along this avenue to detect grvaiational waves. Movements to the giant Ligo inteferometers, to help us in our pursuate.

I know it is not always easy to understand the thinking here as it is piecemealed, while my minds works to weave a cohesive picture here. So, my apologies.

There is a special class of fluids that are called superfluids. Superfluids have the property that they can flow through narrow channels without viscosity. However, more fundamental than the absence of dissipation is the behavior of superfluids under rotation. In contrast to the example of a glass of water above, the rotation in superfluids is always inhomogeneous (figure). The fluid circulates around quantized vortex lines. The vortex lines are shown as yellow in the figure, and the circulating flow around them is indicated by arrows. There is no vorticity outside of the lines because the velocity near each line is larger than further away. (In mathematical terms curl v = 0, where v(r) is the velocity field.)

Early on the very idea of measuring discrete functions in relation to how we might percieve quark and gluonic natures which arose from the gold ion collisions, raises the very idea of how we may look at the analogies sought to help shape perspective from the horizon, to what is emitted? A Virtual Photon released in pair production at the horizon can become?

While I had come to recognize the differences in thermodynamic principals held in context of the blackhole, the very idea of He⁴raises some interesting scenario's in relation to sound values, while "extreme curvature" had been lead too as a singularity in the blackhole?? This singuarity thought to besimlar to the hawking no bondary proposal would not sit well with how the very nature of the blackhole actually becomes the superfluid that we hav come to recognize in the collider perspectives. This changes things somewhat. How fortunate is it in relation to how we see the supersymmetry that coudl arise inthe action fo symmetry break that signs could be lea dto the nature of the phton release and stretched under the aupsice of theis grvaiutional field?

Overlap of "quantum" and "classical" behaviour

Explanations of Hawking radiation around a black hole often use a description of quantum-mechanical pair production effects occurring on a curved spacetime background. Although this paradigm does not obviously lend itself to a "classical" reinterpretation, research on the black hole membrane paradigm has revealed some overlap between "classical" and "quantum" descriptions.

Plato:

What conditions would have allowed such a scene to be developed in supersymmetrical view, that I had wondered, could such a perfect fluid be the example needed? What blackholes hole would allow such a view to be carried down to this level in gold ion collisions, that we might see the results of string theory, as a useful analogy in the discernation of what can now be brought forward for inspection.

So having recognized the two phases of superfluids that ha dbeen created how woud such analogies move th emind to coisder this other nature of of a helium whose viscosity woud have allowed the sound to travel under the same aupsice held in context of the photon whose naure would havebeen rvealled in redshifting? Would suchj a thing held in context of blue shifting be cancelled out in quark/gluonic phases. that the analogy no longer suits our purpose? While sound i analogy in helium may have revealled the very nature of the superfluid designs we woudl like to see in comparsion to how thephotons are looked at with such short distances? They are cancelled out here?


Thorne: Black holes and time warps…, chapter 11, "What is reality?"

The laws of black-hole physics, written in this membrane paradigm, are completely equivalent to the corresponding laws of the curved-spacetime paradigm – as long as one restricts attention to the hole's exterior. Consequently, the two paradigms give precisely the same predictions for the outcomes of all experiments or observations that anyone might make outside a black hole …"

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.

As you look at the picture above, the very depths to which vision might have been imparted in recognition of this supefluid, what value would be assign something held in the context of the wave nature to have seen it described as a granulization and then thought of in terms of the langangrian perspective as cosmic strings which cross this universe? Make sure you click on the picutre.

Granularity of the Fluid?

Taken from the horizon, how would this fluid look if held in context of William Unruh's previously thought "continous nature" or as a discretium release of Hawking like phonons? It may be "by analogy" help physicists with respect to the nature of gravitational blackholes?

Xtra dimensions

In the Beginning.....

The field of cosmology has experienced an explosion of activity since the discovery of ripples in the energy of the primordial light of the big bang. Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution, and fate of objects in the observable universe. These include galaxies like our Milky Way, a vast collection of stars spanning many thousands of light years. The key to the birth and evolution of such objects lies in the primordial ripples observed through light shining through from the early universe.

Having learnt from Wayne Hu and his CMB info study, it help me see where the hills and Valleys might have attained some recognition in how one landscape might have been seen in relation to Wayne Hu's.

Cosmologists actually run computer simulations to track how matter collects into valleys. For example, here is a simulation running forward in time which shows how particles collect and enhance small initially small wrinkles

Thank you Wayne Hu to opening the doors to the realizations that I had formed in the ideas of the supersymmetrical Universe. Little did you know that Andrey's picture would set the course for how I saw the Cosmic string arise from such a background.



Develope our views into the CSL Pictures here. I wanted to take this time to thank Lubos Motl for his continued efforts in this direction.

CSL-1 cosmic string gravitational lens and 2 more, with many views of the Capodimonte Deep Field OACDF2 with subtle background features, similar to recent Millennium Simulation of evolution of structure in our Universe. Identical stereo pairs are introduced.

So to then, if such a trail leads us to what that geometical propensity is, how so from such a tale of quantum gravity? It had to lead from something, so from the beginning.......? :)

Modification To GR

Sean Carroll:

Why three dimensions of space just aren't enough?

What does General Relativity say in terms of a simple word to describe it? "Gravity?"

“This is what’s happening all the time within us, we have these little lava lamps,” said Frank Wilczek in his Nobel lecture in 2004 when he showed this QCD animation created by Derek Leinweber. The animation illustrates the fluctuations of the quark and gluon fields over time, revealing a lumpy structure that Leinweber dubbed the QCD lava lamp.

So modifications to Gr bring perspective to lead us to other views in terms of xtra-dimensional analysis(degrees of freedom at a gluonic level)? Can I say this in regard to such things as xtra dimensional analysis?

Of course mine is a generalization spoken from the idea of what Eric Aldeberger might find, but this did not limit the scope of vision that would have moved us beyond the fifth postulate. Non euclidean geometries, were very hepful here and so too, hyperdimensional thinking?

Relativistic Jets: The Common Physics of AGN, Microquasars and Gamma-Ray Bursts

Reimann then thought there would come a time to see such thinking expressed beyond just the positive expressions in spherical relations? Jets, in relation, to Anti-matter creation? A whole new abstract way of thinking in the mathematical realms?

So what had radiation and CFT showed us from Bekenstein bound, as we peered into the inside of the blackhole construction? What geoemtries existed? Was there a emergent geometric principal. Of course, that is in question, and the degrees of freedom would spell the depths to what we were able to see? That did not stop us from talking about the substance of quantum Geometry as Greene explained to us.

What value did the temperatures play in our assessment of the internal dynamics of what would have happpened from a the grvaiational collapse generated and the radiation, that would hav been emitted. Acoustic radiation helps to a degree.

Thank you Smolin for such a responsible attitude of the science position of Glast, but it now has to induce new insight by adopting other theoretical positions?

Religious Convictions and Belief

I as a layman do operate from a biased position, and one that would have asked for a better respect of the scientific procedure, as Peter Woit and those of science would ask us as layman in our demonstrations.

Would I accept the responsibilty of Sean atheistic valuations, in our determinations of what we can be held accounatble as to the repercussions of our very actions. In our thoughts, that would ripple ever wider, as a consequence of our choices?

Yes I think deeply about these things, and they are far distant from the responsibilities of science, but I needed to show this, so it is understood that I accept that responsibility, even though I too might have had a belief about God and and our roles in choosing to evolve?

I quickly generalized Relativity above, and so too, did my journey to have been thinking about a simplification in general conceptualizations of those extra dimensions.

Was it wrong to do so in light of the need for sound thinking right now? I have to apologize for that too, as this is biased in my views from such a simplifcation.

There is a result in thinking about the measure of those extra dimensions, and what had been missing from the initial energy determinations calculated. Where is that missing energy?

Did such a simple logic not recognize that associated in this energy valuation, to reductionist principles, that this would be sent off into some other dimensional recognition of the values of that energy along side of modification to General relativity?

There had to be a consistancy lead from to incorporate such thinking to simplfications in general concepts and views I have about the psychological prospects of causes of our thought processes. To have ramifications beyond the border of our own brains. But this is just me right now. So I don't want to mislead anyone.

Further Speculations

Sometimes I can't but help think that we currently in a blackhole that driven to expansitory values and curent CMB temepratures made me think, that if we saw the expansion process as inhernet in this universe, then why is it not that we see we are in such a Blackhole? Is this wrong?

Then what value these Suns that still burn within this context, and such distance between the objects of space seen in a cosmological distance? More speculation that I send such thoughts of mine to the beginings of the universe and what interactive features sent this universe into it's expansion process? What stage are we atthen, to have been held at a certain process in the blackholes status, to have thought about the big crunch signal by the very initial response and distance of the schwarzchild radius that preceded this expansive view?

Inverse Square law, to explain the value of these determinations, as to what would exist on our horizon?

Forgive me as I lost myself in such thoughts.