Stringy Geometry

fancier way of saying that is that in general, it's okay to model the space around us using the Euclidean metric. But the Euclidean model stops working when gravity becomes strong, as we'll see later. The Euclidean model for space

The magic square of "Albrect Durer" located in my index on the right is fascinating from the point of view that such a symmetry can be derived from the view of moving in an abstract space.

Trying to understand the implication of what is happening in a stronger gravitational field is an abstract journey for me as well, while I hold "thoughts of lensing" in my mind as a accumulative effect of something that is happening naturally out in space.

The move to Lagrangian points out in space is also an accumulative effect of thinking in this abstract way.

I not only think of the "magnetic field as as an associative value for that abstractness," it is a geometry that is the same for me, as I try to unravel the energy valuation of points(KK Tower) of any location in space. While the valuation of a circle on a 2 dimensional screen sees a string vibrating, I am moving this perception to valuations onto mathematical models.

I have nobody to help this way I have to push forward, knowing there will be mistakes, and that hopefully I am grasping the full scope of seeing in a abstract way.


Figure 2. Clebsch's Diagonal Surface: Wonderful.

We are told that "mathematics is that study which knows nothing of observation..." I think no statement could have been more opposite to the undoubted facts of the case; that mathematical analysis is constantly invoking the aid of new principles, new ideas and new methods, not capable of being defined by any form of words, but springing direct from the inherent powers and activity of the human mind, and from continually renewed introspection of that inner world of thought of which the phenomena are as varied and require as close attention to discern as those of the outer physical world, ...that it is unceasingly calling forth the faculties of observation and comparison, that one of its principal weapons is induction, that it has frequent recourse to experimental trial and verification, and that it affords a boundless scope for the exercise of the highest efforts of imagination and invention. ...Were it not unbecoming to dilate on one's personal experience, I could tell a story of almost romantic interest about my own latest researches in a field where Geometry, Algebra, and the Theory of Numbers melt in a surprising manner into one another.

Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01-Relativity-The First 20th Century Revolution

It was the beginning of what might be called (and in fact is called) Stringy Geometry. The point is that strings are not points, and specifically, their extended nature means that in addition to being able to see the usual geometrical properties of a space that the theory like General Relativity can see, the strings can see other, intrinsically stringy, data. There is a quantity in the theory that is called the Kalb-Ramond field (or just the “B-field”) that can be used to measure how much the string can winds on or wraps a piece of the geometry, in essence. The parameter a that measures the size of a piece of the space that collapses when the geometry becomes singular, is essentially joined by another parameter, b, that sort of measures how much the strings have wound or smeared themselves on that piece of the space. The upshot is that a and b naturally combine themselves into a complex parameter that naturally describes the resolution process, solving the puzzle that the Mathematicians faced.

Beyond Einstein: Fixing Singularities in Spacetime

I am always trying to get the "visual models" of such proposals in terms of the B Field. Nigel Hitchin

Can you tell me, if the Dynkin diagrams and the points on a Sylvestor surface/ Cayley model have some value when looking at this subject?

Also, if it would be wrong to see "UV coordinates of a Gaussian arc" can be seen in this light as well?

I am recording this to help me understand how energy windings of the string may be seen as points on the Sylvester Surface?

See: What is Happening at the Singularity?

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

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?":)

At What "Point" does the Universe Make itself Known?

According to the basic laws of physics, every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation corresponds to a specific amount of energy. The NIST/ILL team determined the value for energy in the Einstein equation, E = mc2, by carefully measuring the wavelength of gamma rays emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms.

This, was encapsulated in a "point before time and space(?), that explodes again into your mind, as if some universe coming into being? How could that "be?"

Like a bubble perhaps, or like a universe that has reached it furthest reaches, collapses again, and where does the universe lead us, but back to "this point"?? Some event that has unleashed it's potential and spoke about the geometrics of, and we found that it lead back to "the time" where the universe again began?

When primary cosmic rays collide, what allowed the secondary particles to emerge? What is cerenkov light emitted? ICECUBE.



They can trace back the gamma rays to the original source? The gamma rays are not affected by the magnetic field? This allows them to trace back the history of the particles back to the original source? How do "they know" where it came from?

There was a time when the realization existed that particle creation had no relation to what the universe did in it's first three minutes of Weinberg? Now, it has become Microseconds? Are you convinced now?

Let's assume that you are, so what allowed us to go back to what any moment could be produced given the right set of circumstances? That what is out there is is also inside?

We had to be able to go back to the beginning of the universe did we not?

So what use models serve if they can not be applied at many levels and now we see the trail of young theorists move to other realms, sociologically driven, where their abilities are better used on wall street or the likes, because it just didn't make sense anymore to try and delve into it.

Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

Or to see the science used in a destruction of a kind, that it's reverberation magnified tens of times, could be used from one plane load? Laughlins "exemplified page" is forever haunting in what these magnifications can become from a condensed matter theorist point of view?

So how do ideas enter the mind? You create the Blank slate and endeavour to write the formula for aspects of creation? What "energy values" are these?

Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.

But it's more then that, to think that the energy chaotic, is in it's extremes, would have no "organizational skills" to begin to manifest itself in it's very guises, that one might ask, "what use any energy put too?"

So this becomes the pattern? A Pattern of destruction?

No, not always. It can become a pattern for peace.:) A balance found(?) of the exchange, that "things" could be in a state of "becoming?" Allows yo to move inthe world in a different way. You can grow, as you extend the antenna out there, and allow what is out there to come inside?

Singularities must be Rewritten?

From Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01 On Relativity-Plate 24

I have given examples why the singularities have to be rewritten. I explain the value of the KK Tower as well. As well, it's relationship to curvature of the universe. Following through that discussion I hope I reveal the thinkng that has been garnered through my own research and understanding.

If the initial states at the beginning of the universe are to be in concert with particle reductionism, and the particle creations that I have exemplified in how particles came into being, then, the understanding of what can be transmitted through the blackhole is extremely important as a valuation of what appears over time?

So we have this universe and the temperature of the WMAP and the cosmic background?

You have to know what the entropic realizations say about this time(now), as well as what is gravitationally being exemplified at this junction of the universe in terms of geometrical curves.

Are the expansitory revelations being realized as I relate entropic and temperature valuation to the existing universe? What about the beginning then, and our supersymmetical realization?

It was much simplier then?:)

So looking for similarites in expression ask that "lagrangian methods" be established in terms of how the "weak field measure" in context of the Sun/earth relation, also speaks too, what is transmitted in the high energy collisions "outflows" as well?

Image and text from NASA Solar System

The Quark Gluon Plasma revealled the anomalies for us to consider the "jet outflow" of all that is being propelled back into this universe? Much like this image that is being reproduced. The beginning has then been established in my point of view:)

Particle creation helps to exemplified this position.

You would have to understand this geometrical progression as well?

If you seat yourself in the terms of high energy considerations, how shall this geometry be expressed? Topological undertanding would need to be examined as you progressed to the basis of the singularity with the way I am seeing. The way I am directing one's view to that singularity in terms of the Quark Gluon Plasma.

High energy photon recognition helps us in this regard as well?

Science Mathmatically Endowed?

Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

Sometimes this is taken to another level of actual "feuding," yet it is understood, that they are all working towards the same end?


http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~strings/superstrings/extradim.htm

One might called it discretism(to experimentally justify-Glast induced) while the other a "continuity of sorts" when it comes to "energy valuations" analogistically based on some "KK tower of tree like" reasoning? :) Unfortunately, I lost the owner of this quote below.

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

Encapsulate all things "gravitationally enhanced" while extending the framework of the standard model? I did not say, or others did not say, that we should discard all science thinking?

The History of the Tree Rings



Oh that fellow is not me either.

I wanted to added some "time" to the idea of things holding the history of, whether it be "energy valuations" held in regards to the particle creations, but also to the idea of earth's history embedded in some "form of expression" here on earth?

Why it's hard "macroscopically," not to look at the "ancient tree rings" and wonder about the history embedded? What are all those forces involved at that "specific ring time" doing?


Thales of Miletus

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

With "time variance recognition" in terms of the "relativity of thought," what said the "measures of Grace" are not suitable to what the history of time may have spoken to us in our undertanding of what "the climate" is doing today? But it is more then that.

The Thalean excursion into the "primary principle" needed a science basis from which to work?:) What was "first Principle" and how did such a thing come into existance? We had to know what the "building blocks of matter" may be wrap in process? And of course the ancient thought of water going through it's phases, comes to mind.

Distilliation, as a recognition of the energy, as well as the recognition of what phases the state of water is in?

While it may be the search for the "emotive forces and inspirative surges" into the exploration of the human condition, it is well considered, that such distilliations is a delving into our makeup(realms of thought).

An "intensity" of thought, that allows the seed bed to "bubble forth" into the recognition of what may arise from a simplier time? The "origins of time," as if brought forth "entropically designed" aspects of reality?



The idea of circles just made sense to me, and how we interpret it. Now again, I must remind you of the layman status I have, and must be forgiven for the attempt to understand where we are currently going with science that is mathmatical endow, but has it's basis "in" the science of?

I shall not forget:)

Spacetime 101

Here's some basic background covering how mathematical models of space and time have evolved since ancient times, from the Pythagorean Rule to Newtonian mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity.

For the roads leading to one's view of the strange world of non-euclidean views had to offer, I of course needed some model from which to work. As I looked at the model above and the transfer of higher dimensional thinking, the very idea and contrast to the lower image represented, how would you associate gravity in the diagram but watch the circle valution along side of gravity that emegres from the 2d discription as a energy valution, and relationship to gravity, evolving from mass, energy interconnectivity. I have to apologize as I was developing and am developing.



I do not know if this is right to assign my view above, while one did not know the evaluation of 1R as I watch DRL assessment of what can no longer be considered as valid, I have to wonder why such observations are not thought about more intricately as the valuation of that circle is considered. The comparison was drawn between the two pictures of the spacetime fabric above here, and below.

Let's now start analysing a 2D case, that of the classic Flatland example, in which a person lives in a 2D universe and is only aware of two dimensions (shown as the blue grid), or plane, say in the x and y direction. Such a person can never conceive the meaning of height in the z direction, he cannot look up or down, and can see other 2D persons as shapes on the flat surface he lives in.

So if you follow the dimensional analysis, there is a systemic procedure that one has to follow, that does not have to be held in context of KK interpretation to this point, but it does help if you think about the very basis of this graduation that certain statements make themself known.

Degrees of freedom(Wiki 24 Jan 2006)

Zero dimensions
Point
Zero-dimensional space
One dimension
Line
Two dimensions
2D geometric models
2D computer graphics
Three dimensions
3D computer graphics
3-D films and video
Stereoscopy (3-D imaging)
Four dimensions
Time (4th dimension)
Fourth spatial dimension
Tesseract (four dimensional shapes)
Five dimensions
Kaluza-Klein theory
Fifth dimension
Ten, eleven or twenty-six dimensions
String theory
M-theory
Why 10 dimensions?
Calabi-Yau spaces
Infinitely many dimensions
Banach space (only some have infinitely many dimensions)
Special relativity
General relativity

Would you dimiss a comment by Greene because of the speculation you have felt about him that you might not recognize, what is being said as you watch that circle develope alongside of the sphere, as it moves through the 2d discription? Here's what mean, as I had focused on Brian Greene's words.

Angular momentum can twist light cones and even make time travel possible in theory if not in practice.

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

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

Fifth dimension(wiki 24 Jan 2006)

Abstract, five dimensional space occurs frequently in mathematics, and is a perfectly legitimate construct. Whether or not the real universe in which we live is somehow five-dimensional is a topic that is debated and explored in several branches of physics, including astrophysics and particle physics.

Five dimensions in physics(Wiki 24 Jan 2006)

In physics, the fifth dimension is a hypothetical dimension which would exist at a right angle to the fourth dimension

KK Tower

Like many people who devote their time to understanding the nature of the cosmo and the micro perspective of the world around us, these things have their own motivational packages which move to further rquired comprehensions. In that, one needs to further educateas to what they are talking about.

It's definitiely not easy, but I am trying, and devote a lot of time to this regardless of what schooling is required, it is not my intent to send people down the wrong paths, or, no paths at all, before I have investigated the terrain as best I can.

Mountains can give persepctive where sitting in the valleys circumspect what the greater can be?

KK Tower

What is it?



Kaluza-Klein theory(Wiki 4 Jan 2006)

A splitting of five-dimensional spacetime into the Einstein equations and Maxwell equations in four dimensions was first discovered by Gunnar Nordström in 1914, in the context of his theory of gravity, but subsequently forgotten. In 1926, Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up in a circle of very small radius, so that a particle moving a short distance along that axis would return to where it began. The distance a particle can travel before reaching its initial position is said to be the size of the dimension. This extra dimension is a compact set, and the phenomenon of having a space-time with compact dimensions is referred to as compactification.

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

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

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



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


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

Getting Ducks in a Row

Energising the quest for 'big theory'
By Paul Rincon

We are at a point where experiments must guide us, we cannot make progress without them," explains Jim Virdee, a particle physicist at Imperial College London

Good to see Joanne contributions here as well as Marks.

Even though Dissident throws up tidbits for the "unlikely scenario of Blackholes" that devour? These were early fears that were propogated by those of us who did not understand. Maybe the new TV show will make itself known here? What has our past shown in this regard?

Peter Steinberg

Unfortunately, all of this is overstated. At RHIC we don't make a "real" black hole, in the sense envisioned by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Rather, Nastase's point of view is that RHIC collisions can be described by a "dual" black hole. But what does "dual" mean in this context? It's not "two-ness" in any sense, but rather indicates that one can write down a theory which describes the collision as a black hole, but in a completely different world than that we see around us. To make his model work, he (and many other researchers who are exploring this direction) make a calculation of a black hole in 10 dimensions in order to describe difficult (but gravitationally benign) aspects of the strong interaction in 4 dimensions.

I was equally dismayed by the understanding that this methods were not understood by dissident, as to the value of Pierre Auger's views containing the very ideas that we see in the enviroment around us. Is it an alternative to how we see particle interactions? Of course. John Ellis made this point very clear, as I have demonstrated through out this site, gaining perspective as spoken by Ellis on information given.

Plato:

The Fly's Eye and the Oh My God Particle John Ellis was instrumental in opening up perspective here. What is happening outside of collision reductionist processes of the colliders

I get a little philosophical myself sometimes, with the hope that "pure thought" can lead me to the very math structure that would be most appropriate. But like anything, there are so many maths in which to talk about the world in such an abstract way, one wonders if they are actually talking about reality? But they are are. :)

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

The ideas around KK are also included, like most, I have a lot to learn. But the KK tower is explanatory about the a lot of things in relation to the energy values that are being assigned here? Just diffrent ways at looking at scattering amplitudes and counting might have looked if we took nature to gluonic perceptions? A granularaization? While at such levels then there are no geometries in which anything can emerge?

DumbBiologist:

There’s no other necessary connection to stringy physics except that it’s a KK theory (I guess the compactified dimensions can still be pretty big compared to the Planck length…perhaps they have to be?). It’s not obviously related to quantum gravity, anyway.

So how do you include such "weak field "manifestation in your global perspective(standard model). Some things are recorded, and some can't be seen? So what is the glue that binds:)

A collision had produced the "superfluid" has no place in quantum gravity issues?

He⁴ came from information the beginning, that a Giddings or a Steinberg might have given us about the nature of the "source" of this collision? How would such a thing from this place have figured, this was a place in which to begin to count? So we write it in and hope that such views in context of this "unitary nature" will have revealled all the tragetories of the scatterings, to have said this is a complete view?


Lubos Motl:

When you add a force that you want to treat perturbatively, which should be possible if the success of QED is reproduced by your quantum theory of gravity and electromagnetism, then you are expanding around "g=0" where "g" is the gauge coupling. In quantum gravity, there is a new ultraviolet cutoff "g.M_{Planck}" above which the effective theory breaks down. If "g" goes to zero, then this scale goes to zero, too. The theory therefore breaks down at all scales. You can't expand around the point where gravity is the strongest force because a quantum theory of gravity in which gravity is stronger than other forces is inconsistent.

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.

String Theory Displays Golden Ratio Tendency?

Srinivas Ramanujan (1887-1920):

Ramanujan was a mathematician so great his name transcends jealousies, the one superlatively great mathematician whom India has produced in the last hundred years. "His leaps of intuition confound mathematicians even today, seven decades after his death. ..the brilliant, self-taught Indian mathematician whose work contains some of the most beautiful ideas in the history of science. His legacy has endured. His twenty-one major mathematical papers are still being plumbed for their secrets, and many of his ideas are used today in cosmology and computer science. His theorems are being applied in areas - polymer chemistry, computers, cancer research - scarcely imaginable during his lifetime. His mathematical insights yet leave mathematicians baffled that anyone could divine them in the first place.'

Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion - Hindu Goddess of creativity. In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.

Artist's impression of the setup.

The disks represent the bosonic condensate density and the blue balls in the vortex core represent the fermionic density. The black line is a guide to the eye to see the wiggling of the vortex line that corresponds to a so-called Kelvin mode, which provides the bosonic part of the superstring (image and text:

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505055

Plato:

When I was a kid, I liked to take buttons and place a thread through them. Watching Mom, while I prep the button, she got ready to sew. I would take both ends of the thread and pull it tightly. I liked the way the button could spin/thread depending on how hard I pull the thread

I was thinking about this toy model developed for strng theory comprehension and all of a sudden the attempts by Lubos of Solving the Riemann Hypothesis came into view?

Now some of you know that such consistancies built up from the very idea of "Liminocentric structures" are always pleasing to me. Because of the energy valuations I might have associated to the "circles within circles" as ideas manifest( their degrees of manifest).



A KK tower about 1r radius valuation seen in the varing shapes of tubes? At what stage were these and what could I tell about the idea as it merged from that deep source and probabilstic value of where we all draw from.




That soothing watery world( our dream world ) of ideas that could manifest for us into nature, taken as an consequence relayed, from the continued circles of action? We are better predictors then we think? We did not know where this idea could manifest from, and what energy relations could have given such suttle thoughts repercussions in the very world they could have manifested into?

The relation and perplexing problem I had with identify how such a structure intrigued by Sklar would make it difficult to identify which circle is describing which stage of whee we are at with the innner/outer, was raised when it came to the developing the understanding and differences on how rubber bands placed over a apple, might have a different connotation, when moved over a donut?

Continuity of this action as a color vaiation would have made me then think of Mendeleev in his table of constituents, as I looked at the relation in the world of such discrete things.



Imagine the complexity of music that could be most pleasing, could also be very destructive in the "fields of thought"? I had espoused this in Plato's academy? All of this contained in the light sensation in a little music disc?

What stories indeed have we converted to light, in our apprehensions? Philosophically, I could be committed for my heresy, for all the things I might have assigned to "Heavens ephemeral qualities." Verging on the crackpotism, I know.:)

See:

Fool's Gold

Big Horn Medicne Wheel

Expansitory Valuation of a Circle with Gravity?

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Now I refer to this often, because of this connection between inner content and outer context. I know it deals with a consciousness and subjective valuation, but it seems very important when you think of what could happen between the compactification of the sun or earth and its size, once dealt to a blackhole?

In this setting of the spherical mass M, we define the value rS = 2M as the Schwarzschild radius of the mass. If the mass has a radius less than rS, then it is called a black hole. In that case, the surface r =rS is called the event horizon of the black hole.

Sometimes the determination of this value has to be seen in light of how we see the gravitational properties of the energy. Windings then, come of value in KK tower representations, and hence images of circles joining other circles can represented in a tree?

It's trunk and branches. Although this imagery is a little different, the base of the larger circle has pointed in the right direction, if we think of flat euclidean space, where no gravity potential can exist? Although we like to think there is never this abscence of harmonic oscillation, it would have to be assumed that it had always existed and can never really be zero?

Had I then complicated the ideal of this circle by recognizing this value from the ground up, had I lost sight of it's root system, and how well it is buried in the earth. How shall I explain this, but as a inverse function of growth? This is not possible. So we see where the seeding had the potential to rise from the earth in one form, and proceed to move into the air, as a phase from it's early unverse beginnings?

So where does this motivation then exist in the design?

A circle of radius r has a curvature of size 1/r. Therefore, small circles have large curvature and large circles have small curvature. The curvature of a line is 0. In general, an object with zero curvature is "flat."

See LIminocentric structure here for a deeper explanation. Greene's emphasis helps in other aspects as well. How can a six foot man exist in such a tiny circle?:)

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So in the one sense(or topo-sense) I see similarities between planes and cyliners and they are isometrically equivalent, and then ideas of topological design spoken of, in the idea of the coffee cup becoming a donut, and all of a sudden this kind of geometry had taken a turn for perspective that deals with other things then I am normally accustom too.

So on a csomological level we get this sense of curvature and here to further exploit this understanding the means to such equations supplied for this endeavor.



But taken to the tree level(potato plant):) and interactive features of windings how shall we interpret such energies, but by those same windings? That the seed of the plant held a greater design for growth, yet it is in the seed this plant and it's energy contained that it's futre is realized. I know this plant thingy is a bad analogy for how such circle and the arrow of time. Would a flower be better? How does anything loop back onto itself and replay this universe all over again?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

So when you read Lubos's entry here in Nasa's Collider you have to wonder? How on a physical level, the circle implied( our universe now after the first three minutes) could have ever recieved the connotation of it's valuation in a collision as large as we see in that situation? But you have to understand this connection between Gia and the "plate he hits", or the mirror moon measures and of course, there are simultaneous question about dimensional perspectve and compacted circles that raised the undertanding beyond current standards in our everyday world. Much like understanding strong curvature in a circle. How far can this be taken?

You would not think this post here would have ever had anything to do with Lubos simple statement about Nasa'a Collider, but it does?:) I guess it depends on which circle you belong too?

Special Lagrangian geometry

Dr. Mark Haskins

On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".

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.

I am execising the geometrical tendencies here in how Sylvester surfaces might have revealled the interior space of a Reimann sphere( Calabi Yau rotations exemplified and complete), while these points located on the sphere's surface, brane, reveal a deeper interactive force within this sphere. Again I am learning to see here, hopefully it's right. The bloggers out there who work in this direction are most helpful, P.P Cook, Lubos Motl and others, who help point the way.

Differences in the gravitational forces speak directly to dimensional relevances In Lagrangian, by association to the energy valuations? Euclids postulate from 1-4, had to be entertained in a new way, from a non-euclidean world of higher dimensions? It was well evident that supergravity, would find solace in the four dimensional relevances of spacetime? How did Kaluza and Klein get there? Cylinders?

Yet the dynamical world of the way in which the satelitte can move through space helps one to adjust to how these dynamcial avenues can propel this satelitte through that same space. Circular orits chaotically predictable, yet quite diverse shown in the poincare model representation, shows how bizzare the ability of the Lagrangian points become. Can one see well with this new abstractual quality?

Einstein's equations connect matter and energy (the right-hand side) with the geometry of spacetime (the left-hand side). Each superscript stands for one of the 4 coordinates of spacetime; so what looks like one equation is actually 4 x 4 = 16 equations. But since some are repeated there are really 10 equations. Contrast this with the single gravitational law of Newton! That alone gives a hint of the complexity of these equations. Indeed, they are amongst the most difficult equations in science. Happily, however, some exact solutions have been found. Below we discuss one such exact solution, the first, found in 1916 by Karl Schwarzchild.

So it was important to understand how this view was developed further. The semantics of mathematical expression was a well laid out path that worked to further our views of what could have been accompished in the world of spacetime, yet well knowing, that the dynamcial revealled a even greater potential?



So now you engaged the views inside and out, about bubble natures, and from this, a idea that is driven. That while Michio Kaku sees well from perspective, the bridge stood upon, is the same greater comprehension about abstract and dynamical processes in that same geometrical world. Beyond the sphere, within the sphere, and the relationship between both worlds, upon Lagrangian perspective not limited.

Placed within the sphere, and this view from a point is a amazing unfoldment process of views that topological inferences to torus derivtives from boson expressed gravitational idealizations removed themself from the lines of circles to greater KK tower representations?

The following is a description of some of the models for the hyperbolic plane. In order to understand the descriptions, refer to the figures. They may seem a bit strange. However, a result due to Hilbert says that it is impossible to smoothly embed the hyperbolic plane in Euclidean three-space using the usual Euclidean geometry. (Technical note: In fact it is possible to have a C^1 embedding into R^3, according to a 1955 construction of Nicolaas Kuiper, but according to William Thurston, the result would be "incredibly unwieldy, and pretty much useless in the study of the surface's intrinsic geometry."[William Thurston, "Three Dimensional Geometry and Topology," Geometry Center Preprint, 1991, p.43.]) Since there is no such smooth embedding, any model of the hyperbolic plane has to use a different geometry. In other words, we must redefine words like point, line, distance, and angle in order to have a surface in which the parallel postulate fails, but which still satisfies Euclid's postulates 1-4 (stated in the previous article). Here are brief descriptions of three models:

This process had to be thought of in another way? Point, line, plane, became something else, in terms of string world? M theory had to answer to the ideas of supergravity? How so? Great Circles and such? Topological torus forms defined, inside and out? Completed, when the circle become a boson expressed? A point on a brane now becomes something larger in perspectve? Thanks Ramond.

A recipe for making strings in the lab

All you educated people must forgive me here. I do not have the benefit, of the student and teacher relationship, yet I rely heavily on my intuitive processes. I cannot say whether for sure these are always right. IN this sense, I would not have been liked to call a Liar, or one who had ventured forth to spread illusionary tactics to screw up society.

On the contrary, my ideal is set in front of my mind, and all things seem to gather around it most appropriately. A place and time, where good educators have watched out for the spread and disemmination, that could lead society away from, good science? I will give credit to Peter Woit in this sense. Lubos Motl for staying the course. As to those who excell these views for us as well. We are your distant cousins in need of education and for those, in the backwoods of isolation.

Fixations on Objective Design

This is far from the truth of my goal, and "fixations on objective design" of reality, are not what I was hoping to reveal. More, the understandng, that to get there, there are some considerations to think about.

The idealization in theoretcial developement should show this. The physics must accompany the development of this lineage of mathematics, as well as the lineage of physics must lead mathematics? What is the true lineage? Could any mathematican tell me or are they limited to the branches they deal with in physics?

Now back to the topic of this thread.

When I was a kid, I liked to take buttons and place a thread through them. Watching Mom, while I prep the button, she got ready to sew. I would take both ends of the thread and pull it tightly. I liked the way the button could spin/thread depending on how hard I pull the thread.



Now for some of you who don't know, the pythagorean string tension was arrived at by placing gourds of water on strings, to dictated the harmonical value, "according to weight?"

It is said that the Greek philosopher and religious teacher Pythagoras (c. 550 BC) created a seven-tone scale from a series of consecutive 3:2 perfect fifths. The Pythagorean cult's preference for proportions involving whole numbers is evident in this scale's construction, as all of its tones may be derived from interval frequency ratios based on the first three counting numbers: 1, 2, and 3. This scale has historically been referred to as the Pythagorean scale, however, from the point of view of modern tuning theory, it is perhaps convenient to think of it as an alternative tuning system for our modern diatonic scale.

So we see the nature spoken too, in a much different way?

KakuIf strings are to be the harmony then what music do such laws of chemistry sing? What is the mind of God? Kaku saids,"According to this picture, the mind of God is Music resonanting through ten- or eleven dimensional hyperspace which of course begs the question, If the Universe is a symphony, then is there a composer to the symphony."

Simply put, superstring theory says all particles amf forces are manifestations of different resonances of tiny one dimenisonal strings(or possibly membranes) vibrating in ten dimensions.


Artist's impression of the setup.

The disks represent the bosonic condensate density and the blue balls in the vortex core represent the fermionic density. The black line is a guide to the eye to see the wiggling of the vortex line that corresponds to a so-called Kelvin mode, which provides the bosonic part of the superstring

(image and text: )arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505055.

Now I will tell you why this elementary experiment is very good for fixing the mind around some potential idea? Now, when I look at it, and look at the ball placings on each disk ( are they in the same spot....hmmm yes this could be a problem), each disk will automatically spin according to the placement of the ball, in relation to it's edge. Now when you place this in line, like a one dimensional string, as if you see this string vibrate, imagine how you would get these waves to exemplify themself and the disk placement acccordingly.

Now it is most important that you see the tension of this string vibrate, in relation to how we see the disks spin. Pull tightly on the string and you get a wonderful view of a oscillatory nature, that is dictated by the respective placement of the balls on the disk. Good stuff!

In brackets above, the exploration of artistic rendition is very good, because it allows you to further play with this model and exhaust it's potential. Would it be incorrect to say, that ball placement and vibratory placement can be related to string harmonics? In this case, how would KK tower and circle allocation to disk identify this string, but to have some signature in the way these disks spin,,individually and as a whole(one string)

The link below was 2000 but it is effective in orientating thoughts?

To find extra dimensions of the type studied by the CERN group, experimenters are on the alert for what they call Kaluza-Klein towers, which are associated with carriers of the nongravitational forces, such as the photon of electromagnetism and the Z boson of the weak force. Excitations of energy within the extra dimensions would turn each of these carriers into a family of increasingly massive clones of the original particle—analogous to the harmonics of a musical note.

For me, nodal impressions at spots, serve me well to see the vibratory nature of the reality that we live in. Balloons with dyes spread around it, and sound application help us see where such nodal point considerations would settle themself to these distinctive notes. You take the sum(it harmical value, in order to distinctively classify the partcle/object?

Maybe we can have experts describe this in a most genaral way, where I might have complicated the picture:?) What I did want to say about artistic rendition, is like the work of Penrose. It is very important it culminates the vision, to real things? As I showed in Monte Carlo effect. Or, John Baez's view of Plato's God?

Ultracold Superstrings byMichiel Snoek, Masudul Haque, S. Vandoren, H.T.C. Stoof

Supersymmetric string theory is widely believed to be the most promising candidate for a "theory of everything", i.e., a unified theory describing all existing particles and their interactions. Physically, superstring theory describes all particles as excitations of a single line-like object. Moreover, the bosonic and fermionic excitations are related by supersymmetry. A persistent problem of string theories is the lack of opportunity to study them experimentally. In this Letter, we propose and analyze a realistic condensed-matter system in which we can create a non-relativistic Green-Schwarz superstring in four space-time dimensions. To achieve this, we make use of the amazing tunability that is now possible with ultracold trapped atomic gases. In particular, for the creation of the superstring we consider a fermionic atomic gas that is trapped in the core of a vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate. We explain the tuning of experimental parameters that is required to achieve supersymmetry between the fermionic atoms and the bosonic modes describing the oscillations in the vortex position.

Now what is very interesting to me is the way such harmonical value can be seen in in relation to particle identification. It is not always easy to see how such disks and toys could exemplify this for us, but I am trying. If we wanted to see the new toy and the relations that I will show how would this all relate to the disk and the ball on it?



I wanted to look at what you were saying to "try," and understand.

One of the most exciting predictions of Einstein's theory of general relativity is the existence of a new type of wave, known as a gravitational wave. Just as in electromagnetism, where accelerating charged particles emit electromagnetic radiation, so in general relativity accelerating masses can emit gravitational radiation. General relativity regards gravity as a curvature of spacetime, rather than as a force, so that these gravitational waves are sometimes described as `ripples in the curvature of spacetime'.

This mode is characteristic of a spin-2 massless graviton (the particle that mediates the force of gravity). This is one of the most attractive features of string theory. It naturally and inevitably includes gravity as one of the fundamental interactions.

By looking at the quantum mechanics of the relativistic string normal modes, one can deduce that the quantum modes of the string look just like the particles we see in spacetime, with mass that depends on the spin according to the formula

Remember that boundary conditions are important for string behavior. Strings can be open, with ends that travel at the speed of light, or closed, with their ends joined in a ring.

See:

Quantum Harmonic Oscillators

Distinctions of Holographical Sound