Showing posts with label Kaluza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kaluza. Show all posts

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Search for Extra-dimensions with ATLAS at the LHC: The Lions Den

I have often wonder whether or not my opinions about left and right aspect battling in society, are right?:) Peter Woit saids string theory is right wing financed? I hate to dread that media has been perversive enough in order to support political factions affecting science?

So I'll tell you how affected I have become too, so you can see that the greater significance and responsibility is not really about right and left, but about science's perspective about the state of affairs beyond the matters at hand?

I couldn't help think of the flavour of good scientific minds, who would rise to the challenge, and make the theoretical approach some struggle between good and evil? As some atheistic attempt, "to remove informative possibilities" from the subject that might have come from the "trigger of emergent properties"? I don't say change quantum mechanical porpityies either just that we see it in context of a new model. Is this wrong, or right?

Fancy free, and without adeu, I cast myself on what it must be like, if such a fancy was taken to the issues of "Intelligent design," that it could have ever undermined the basis of this literary conversation, to have scientists designated here and there, as a division, regardless of the virtues of scientific inquiry held to both.

So herein, begins the story.:)

"The soul that rises with us, our life's star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar.
"

"Intimations of Immortality" by William Wordsworth

>"Or, if through lower lives I came--
Tho' all experience past became,
Consolidate in mind and frame--
I might forget my weaker lot;
For is not our first year forgot?
The haunts of memory echo not."
"Two Voices" by Tennyson


"As to you, Life, I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths,
No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before."
""Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman



Solidus of Justinian I (r. 527–565), 538–565

Byzantine; Minted in Constantinople
Gold; Diam. 3/4 in. (1.9 cm)
Bequest of Joseph H. Durkee, 1898 (99.35.7406)
Coins connected an emperor to his subjects. Through inscriptions and images, they conveyed imperial ideals and commemorated auspicious events. The emperor paid the army and received taxes in coins, and he was responsible for maintaining their weight and purity. This coin was minted under Justinian, whose preference for a completely frontal portrait—rather than the traditional profile—would set a standard for the rest of Byzantine history.


The struggle then is something contained back in our history, to have those who will guide us through common sense to say, that the evils of society are no less the roads taken by revisionist who would try and change the path of Christianity? Be smited by, those who hold on religious tenant might have been extolled into the future of lives? Where go these "lost souls" while they converge on string theory and try and change history?:)

From A Defense of an Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668) by John Dryden

Imagination in a man, or reasonable creature, is supposed to participate of reason, and when that governs, as it does in the belief of fiction, reason is not destroyed, but misled, or blinded: that can prescribe tot he reason, during the time of the representation, somewhat like a weak belief of what it sees and hears; and reason suffers itself to be so hoodwinked, that it may better enjoy the pleasures of the fiction: but it is never so wholly made a captive as to be drawn headlong into a persuasion of those things which are most remote from probability: 'tis in that case a free-born subject, not a slave; it will contribute willingly its assent, as far as it sees convenient, but will not be forced....Fancy and reason go hand in hand; the first cannot leave the last behind; and though fancy, when it sees the wide gulf, would venture over, as the nimbler; yet it is withheld by reason, which will refuse to take the leap, when the distance over it appears too large



Missing E_T and its uses (LHC)?

This larger font sized comment directs us in our quest to wonder what had been going with the anti-stringy camps who might have challenged the views? Is there sufficient data to back up the statements, other then to stand as "religous converts of a point of view," soley spoken by the "more advanced," might have their reasons why this approach is insufficient? Other then, to hold the roads of a predawn attempts in christianity to a societal way of thinking, contrary, to the established views written in the years of Constantinople in 538?:)

Thanks to the high collision energy and luminosity of the LHC, the ATLAS detector will be capable of revealing the existence of extra spatial dimensions in some substantial region of parameter space. The talk will summarize recent studies from the collaboration on different possible signals predicted by models where the dimensions are "large", where they are of size ~TeV^-1 or where they are "warped". These signals include direct emission of Kaluza-Klein states of gravitons, virtual effects of graviton exchange and gauge boson excitations. We shall also discuss the possibilities of observing black holes.


In post below this one the question of extra energy was a important one in that it highlights the question of those "extra dimensions or not." For my generalized view, there is no leading explanation to the general public that would annouce how this diversion from current scientific approaches of Cern, will lead to satisfaction of the road of super string theory has taken. To understand, it is not willy nilley approach to some "Intelligent design quest" that such string theorists had been cornered too, in discription by anti-stringy voices?

From what I had understood contrary to this view of the string camp, it's only opositon was LQG and the roads that lead in that general direction. At least these were directions that operated from a basis of discrete or continuity, other then mere speculation of the sort that would dissuaade most readers from idolizing , and being drawn into the lair of lions?:)

It was as if the rhtymns of life could been entangled in minds and the quantum Harmonic osccilator embedded to language that science found in the true numerical basis of eisstance, that it could be cast in forms of shakesperean words, and hidden from the view by Francis Bacon's true discourse on history?

On constitution reform, Jefferson Davis words needed revision, to have a man like Benjamin Franklin stand up and devote a treaty on reason? It would guide the American view, to a healthy and just system of inquiry, as to the rights and freedoms shared by the American views? What lessons lie in scientific inquiry then to have those who stand at the forefront, and make it some intangible realism of the "forces of light and darkness "fighting to bring society into it's talons?

"Death, so called, is but older matter dressed
In some new form. And in a varied vest,
From tenement to tenement though tossed,
The soul is still the same, the figure only lost."

Poem on Pythagoras, Dryden's Ovid.


See:

  • ICHEP'04-Accepted Abstracts for Session 12: Beyond the standard model
  • Thursday, January 13, 2005

    KK: Kaluza Klein Theory

    What is it?

    KK Tower



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

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

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


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



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

    Electromagnetic Calorimeter of the Phenix


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

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

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




    Thursday, December 09, 2004

    THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

    The String Theory Landscape, by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski


    Given the success of replacing the gravitational force with the dynamics of space and time, why not seek a geometric explanation for the other forces of nature and even for the spectrum of elementary particles? Indeed, this quest occupied Einstein for much of his life. He was particularly attracted to work by German Theodor Kaluza and Swede Oskar Klein, which proposed that whereas gravity reflects the shape of the four familiar spacetime dimensions, electromagnetism arises from the geometry of an additional fifth dimension that is too small to see directly (at least so far). Einstein's search for a unified theory is often remembered as a failure. In fact, it was premature: physicists first had to understand the nuclear forces and the crucial role of quantum field theory in describing physics--an understanding that was only achieved in the 1970s.
    .



    Previous, a discussion took place there in Peter's Blog on Susskind and Smolin. I would like to know if Peter supports Smolin's position?

    I had mention to Lubos about the fact that strings/M theory had changed the concept of the quantum mechanical discription of the spacetime fabric. Part of this question, was based on how Smolin and LQGists would be limited in there perceptions, if acceptance of GR, does not go through any revision? Compton scattering amplitudes would have pointed to Glast determinations and support of Smolin in his valuation. But what was deeper in my mind, was the question of what graviton intersection might have implied, if such a unity would have been established, based on KK theory and unification of electromagnetism and gravity?

    In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is counched in the work of Kaluza.

    In para 3, he writes,

    Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and grvaity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained inthe fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.


    NATHAN MYHRVOLD

    I found the email debate between Smolin and Susskind to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it mixes several issues. The Anthropic Principle (AP) gets mixed up with their other agendas. Smolin advocates his CNS, and less explicitly loop quantum gravity. Susskind is an advocate of eternal inflation and string theory. These biases are completely natural, but in the process the purported question of the value of the AP gets somewhat lost in the shuffle. I would have liked more discussion of the AP directly

    The thing I like about the oppositon of minds who embrace the Solvay attitude, is that it forces another to bring forward a history that few of us would have seen. So outside of the comments of opposing views what kind of harmony could have been produced?


    SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE



    Leonnard Susskind and Lee Smolin


    While this is a conversation written by physicists for physicists, it should nonetheless be of interest for Edge readers as it's in the context of previous Edge features with the authors, it's instructive as to how science is done, and it's a debate that clarifies, not detracts.

    Wednesday, December 08, 2004

    Quantum Mechanical Discription of the Spacetime Fabric



    Richard Feynman developed the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics in 1948 (some preliminaries were worked out earlier, in the course of his doctoral thesis work with John Archibald Wheeler) as a description of quantum theory corresponding to the action principle of classical mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique history for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible histories to compute a quantum amplitude.


    I do not know if I have fallen astray from the interesting perspective strings has alloted to us, in the way in which we have always percieve the quantum mechanical discription based on some," sum over history" of all interactions.

    Under the heading of "Time and the Quantum," Pg 189 Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene a interesting statement of historical proportions that askes questions about the nature of the way in which we percieve same. A better indication of the Full Monty, is demonstrated as well?:)

    The beam splitter is not a labratory variety, either, but is a intervening galaxy whose gravitatinal pull can act like a lens that focuses passing photons and directs them to earth,as in Figure 7.3. Although no one has yet carried out this experiment, in principle, if enough photons from the quasar are collected, they should fill out an interference pattern on a long-exposure photographic plate, just as in the labratory beam-splitter experiment. But if we put another photon detector near te end of one route or the other, it which provide which path information for the phtons, thereby destroying the interference pattern.


    I have shown, where this extra dimension was added by Kaluza in 1919, and unless I am quoting the references to Kaku wrong, then such considerations would to me, have changed the way in which we would percieve all these interactions? Something then has happened to the spacetime fabric and how all these interactions would be conceptually addressed? Hence the reference to what String Theorists have done, by changing the disciption to one of strings?

    Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained inthe fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.


    It has been relatively quiet here in the GP-B Mission Operations Center, since the strong solar flares and geomagnetic storm three weeks ago. Our team continues to adjust the flow rate of the excess helium from the Dewar during the present a 6-week “hot” season, where the spacecraft is continually in sunlight throughout each orbit. (See last week’s highlights for a discussion of the spacecraft’s seasons.)


    Immediately to me, the instantaneous feature of photon expression would have detailed a topological value, where such gravitation/photon would demonstrated of itself a continuity of expression? If such geometrical tendencies would have considered the dynamical relationship of the orbital on cosmological correlations then such energy perceptions would have immediately painted a portrait for us, of what has existed in the past, what continues to exist, and what will exist in the future?

    Friday, December 03, 2004

    Inverse Fourth Power Law

    By moving our perceptions to fifth dimenisonal views of Kaluza and KLein, I looked at methods that would help me explain that strange mathematical world that I had been lead too geometrically. If such a bulk existed, then how would we percieve scalable features of the energy distributed within the cosmo?

    The angular movements needed to signal the presence of additional dimensions are incredibly small — just a millionth of a degree. In February, Adelberger and Heckel reported that they could find no evidence for extra dimensions over length scales down to 0.2 millimetres (ref. 11). But the quest goes on. The researchers are now designing an improved instrument to probe the existence of extra dimensions below 0.1 mm. Other physicists, such as John Price of the University of Colorado and Aharon Kapitulnik of Stanford University in California, are attempting to measure the gravitational influence on small test masses of tiny oscillating levers.


    In previous posts I have outline the emergence and understanding of hyperdimensional realities that we were lead too. Our early forbearers(scientifically and artistic embued with vision) as they moved through the geometrical tendencies, that if followed , made me wonder about that this strange mathematical world. How would we describe it, and how would it make sense?


    Our new picture is that the 3-D world is embedded in extra dimensions," says Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. "This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems.


    Quantitative studies of future experiments to be carried out by LHC show that any signatures of missing energy can be used to probe the nature of gravity at small distances. The predicted effects could be accessible to the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab, but the higher energy LHC has the better chance.
    These colliders are still under construction, but results also have consequences for "table-top" experiments, being carried out here at Stanford, as well as the University of Washington and the University of Colorado. Here’s the basic idea: imagine there are two extra dimensions on a scale of a millimeter. Next, take two massive particles separated by a meter, at which distance they obviously behave according to the well-known rules of 3-D space. But if you bring them very close, say closer than one millimeter, they become sensitive to the amount of extra space around. At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments
    .


    As you look at the issue of two points(introduction to hyperdimensional realites of quark confinement as a example), it is well understood, by this point that such emergence had to be geometriclaly consistent on many levels. That such royal roads leading too, culminate in some realistic measure? In that mathematical realm, we had left off, and in recognition of the fifth postulate of euclid. By acceptance and creation of this extra dimension, it was well apparent, that such tendencies were developing along side with the physics as well.

    But we had to determine where this mathematical realm had taken us, in terms of measure? We are quckly reminded of the place in which such measures become the constant rallying point around important questions of these views.



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

    It wasn't a game anymore, that we did not suspect that reductionism might have taken us as far as the energy we could produce could take us? So we had to realize there was limitations to what we could percieve at such microscopic levels.

    High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:

    To see What?

    The structure of matter

    (atoms/nuclei/nucleons/quarks)


    Faced by these limitations and newly founded conceptual views based on the quantum mechanical discription of spacetime as strings, how would we be able to look at the cosmos with such expectancy? To know, that the views energetically described, would allow further developement of the theoretcial positons now faced with in those same reductionistic views?

    What has happened as a result of considering the GR perspective of blackholes, that we had now assigned it relevance of views in cosmological considerations? Such joining of quantum mechanical views and GR, lead us to consider the sigificance of these same events on a cosmological scale. This view, had to be consistent, geometrically lead too?

    If we discover the Planck scale near the TeV scale, this will represent the most profound discovery in physics in a century, and black hole production will be the most spectacular evidence of that new discovery

    Wednesday, December 01, 2004

    Mapping Quark Confinement and The Energy

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




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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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


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



    Gravity and Light in the Fifth Dimension


    Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza November 9, 1885 - January 19, 1954


    In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is counched in the work of Kaluza.

    In para 3, he writes,

    Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and grvaity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained inthe fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.




    Oskar Klein September 15, 1894 - February 5, 1977

    Oskar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension is curled up in a circle of 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. (This occurs because electromagnetism is a U(1) symmetry theory and U(1) is simply the group of rotations around a circle).

    Tuesday, November 30, 2004

    A Classical Discription of the Quantum World?


    D Orbital


    Orbitals are probability diagrams. Specifically, an orbital describes a region in space where there is a 90% change of finding an electron. The electron is never restricted to an orbital as in travels around a nucleus, but it seems to keep returning to this particular region even though its behavior is random. The concept of the orbital differs from Bohr's concept of the orbit. Bohr considered an orbit to be a path that the electron always followed much like a train stays on a track. The concept of the orbital was developed in Schrodinger's work to avoid violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In the Modern Theory of Atomic Structures a picture of an orbital is also called a Probability Diagram. By agreement among chemists, the orbital is a 90% Probability Diag ram. This idea allows the electron to be found anywhere and still indicates where the electron spends most of its time.




    How would one remove the uncertainty principals from the small world but to have considered the probability density distributions? Below is a link that I saw early in my investigations that I had wondered, forced me to look at what could have been happening within the cosmo with events, that would release information into the bulk?



    Electron’s probability density distribution for an atom in the state; n=4, l=4, m=0.



    The star Eta Carina is ejecting a pair of huge lobes that form a "propeller" shape. Jet-like structures are emanating from the center (or "waist"), where the star (quite small on this scale) is located.

    If string theory, in the Kaluza Klein tower energy determinations could have discriptively spoken to the particle natures, why was it not possible to map the nature of these particles, in gravitational information released from these cosmological events?

    If information in the bulk has been released, then this information has been geometrically defined in the gravity waves that we would percieve here on earth? Ligo would have performed its ability to then map the configurations that we see happening in that same cosmos. What made this visualization interesting is if photon release was specific to electromagnetic events held to the brane, then our perception of this energy, would have been left for us to consider in those same gravitational waves?



    Sunday, November 21, 2004

    Is Line , Hook and Sinker, Dimensionally Leading to Soul Food?

    Oskar Klein (left) proposed in the 1920s that hidden spatial dimensions might influence observed physics. He poses with physicists George Uhlenbeck (middle) and Samuel Goudsmit in 1926 at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands.

    AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives

    I think sometimes the road begun existed before many of our own perspectives were added for considerations, so although we find that Einstein argue the simplicity and beauty of GR as it is, and rejected the quantum mechanical nature of the world, he did not reject the extensions of his thoughts to lead to other things. Some might of called this a mistake as well?

    Kaluza and Klein showed in the 1920s that Maxwell's equations can be derived by extending general relativity into five dimensions. This strategy of using higher dimensions to unify different forces is an active area of research in particle physics.

    General consistancy of mathematics and numerical correlation, that unite, seem very plausible tools for recognition? Even if the mathematician, has divorced himself from the real world and said, it fits? Do they not become the Lewis Carroll's and paint pretty pictures for us of a implausible world when they move into this abstract world of mathematics, without joining the physics? Einstein and Kaluza did this for us? There mathematics worked, and why not the Kaluza's consideration to extra dimensions?

    Let there be light! How could we not see that if the extra dimension was added how relevant might such unification have spoken to electromagnetism and gravity?

    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"

    Thank you Wikipedia.

    Einstein's special relativity was developed along Kant's line of thinking: things depend on the frame from which you make observations. However, there is one big difference. Instead of the absolute frame, Einstein introduced an extra dimension. Let us illustrate this using a CocaCola can. It appears like a circle if you look at it from the top, while it appears as a rectangle from the side. The real thing is a three-dimensional circular cylinder. While Kant was obsessed with the absoluteness of the real thing, Einstein was able to observe the importance of the extra dimension


    Wednesday, November 03, 2004

    Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension.

    How do we learn to deal with these abstract spaces, but to have considered the following:





    (a) Compactifying a 3-D universe with two space dimensions and one time dimension. This is a simplification of the 5-D space­time considered by Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein. (b) The Lorentz symmetry of the large dimension is broken by the compactification and all that remains is 2-D space plus the U(1) symmetry represented by the arrow. (c) On large scales we see only a 2-D universe (one space plus one time dimension) with the "internal" U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism.

    After doing some reading I needed to support what was being expounded on here, so I found the following for consideration.

    Einstein's special relativity was developed along Kant's line of thinking: things depend on the frame from which you make observations. However, there is one big difference. Instead of the absolute frame, Einstein introduced an extra dimension. Let us illustrate this using a CocaCola can. It appears like a circle if you look at it from the top, while it appears as a rectangle from the side. The real thing is a three-dimensional circular cylinder. While Kant was obsessed with the absoluteness of the real thing, Einstein was able to observe the importance of the extra dimension

    Monday, November 01, 2004

    5th Dimensional Field Equations

    http://www.tech.port.ac.uk/staffweb/seahras/images/Kaluza.jpeg

    In 1919, Kaluza sent Albert Einstein a preprint --- later published in 1921 --- that considered the extension of general relativity to five dimensions. He assumed that the 5-dimensional field equations were simply the higher-dimensional version of the vacuum Einstein equation, and that all the metric components were independent of the fifth coordinate. The later assumption came to be known as the cylinder condition. This resulted in something remarkable: the fifteen higher-dimension field equations naturally broke into a set of ten formulae governing a tensor field representing gravity, four describing a vector field representing electromagnetism, and one wave equation for a scalar field. Furthermore, if the scalar field was constant, the vector field equations were just Maxwell's equations in vacuo, and the tensor field equations were the 4-dimensional Einstein field equations sourced by an EM field. In one fell swoop, Kaluza had written down a single covariant field theory in five dimensions that yielded the four dimensional theories of general relativity and electromagnetism. Naturally, Einstein was very interested in this preprint .





    Quantum Gravity

    I've put together links for reference on the particular subject titled. If someone has others that they would like to add, please do. I will be placing a permanent link on the sidebar for reference. Hope its useful.

    List of quantum gravity researchers

    List of loop quantum gravity researchers

    String Theorist People


    Quantum Gravity quote

    A pessimist might say that combining string theory and loop quantum gravity is like combining epicycles and aether.
    (John Baez, TWF281)



    What is Quantum Gravity?

    Moderator: Stephen Shenker, Panelists: Abhay Ashtekar, Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind, Gerard 't Hooft, Cumrun Vafa





  • Jan Ambjørn








  • Kostas  Anagnostopoulos






  • John Baez






  • Julian Barbour







  • Chris  Isham







  • Ted  Jacobson







  • Renate  Loll







  • Fotini Markopoulou Kalamara at Penn
    State University
    and Albert
    Einstein Institute







  • Carlo  Rovelli






  • CGPG: Center  for Gravitational Physics and Geometry







  • High-Energy Theory  Group at The Niels Bohr Institute







  • Imperial College  Theoretical Physics Group







  • The Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert  Einstein Institute)







  • Penn State Physics Department







  • Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics






  • String theory







  • Loop quantum gravity of Smolin and Rovelli







  • Noncommutative geometry of Alain Connes








  • Twistor theory of Roger Penrose







  • Abhay Ashtekar -- Author of Ashtekar variables, he is one of the founders of loop quantum gravity.







  • John Baez -- Mathematical physicist.







  • Julian Barbour -- Author of The End of Time, Absolute or Relative Motion? and The Discovery of Dynamics.







  • Martin Bojowald --






  • Louis Crane -- Theorist.







  • Rodolfo Gambini -- Author of Loops, Knots, Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity.







  • Brian Greene -- Physicist who is considered one of the world's foremost string theorists.







  • Stephen Hawking -- Leading theoretical physicists.







  • Peter Higgs -- Proposed the 1960's theory of broken symmetry in electroweak theory,







  • Christopher Isham -- Theoretical physicist.










  • Michio Kaku -- Theoretical physicist with significant contribution to the string field theory.









  • Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara -- Theoretical physicist interested in foundational mathematics and quantum mechanics







  • Roger Penrose -- Mathematical physicist and imade the invention of spin networks.







  • Jorge Pullin -- Theoretical physicist.







  • Carlo Rovelli -- Obtained, with Lee Smolin, an explicit basis of states of quantum geometry.







  • Lee Smolin -- Theoretical physicist who has made major contributions to loop quantum gravity.







  • Andrew Strominger -- Theoretical physicist who works on string theory







  • Thomas Thiemann -- Researcher.







  • Edward Witten -- Mathematical physicist who does research in M-theory







  • Centauro event







  • String theory







  • M-theory







  • Loop Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli







  • http://gravity.psu.edu/online/Html/Seminars/Fall1999/Amelino-Camelia/Slides/s01.html







  • http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/alt/local/gravity/links.html







  • http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/test/Einstein3.htmlSolving Relativity in Three Dimensions.







  • http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/document1.html







  • http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/index.html







  • http://newolder.netfirms.com/upper%20f%20for%20em%20radiation.htm








  • http://www.parcellular.fsnet.co.uk








  • http://www.unifiedftheory.com









  • http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_home.html







  • http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/jwb/qg.html







  • http://www.npac.syr.edu/users/paulc/physics/surfaces.html







  • http://www.npac.syr.edu/PROJECTS/PUB/paulc/physics/surfaces.html






  • http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2.html







  • http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/FCCR/qg.html







  • http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980420b.html







  • http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may96/831205229.Ph.r.html







  • http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/quantum_gravity.html






  • http://penlee.inje.ac.kr/research/black.htm Quantum Gravity and Black Hole Related Published Articles...







  • http://wwwgro.unh.edu/compton5/submitted_abstracts/A005_Kaaret.html







  • http://www.zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/quantum_gravity.html






  • http://www.fervor.demon.co.uk/qgravity.htm







  • http://newton.skku.ac.kr/research-interest/k-research-interest.html







  • http://www.nd.edu/~chemlib/journals/cqg.htm







  • http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/jwb/







  • http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_hawk.html








  • http://suhep.phy.syr.edu/research/randomsurfaces/







  • http://www.phys.psu.edu/~beetle/Phys/tqft.html







  • http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/jwb/pg.html







  • http://aeneas.ps.uci.edu/aeneas/benchqgmpi.html







  • http://www.lib.msu.edu/dbases/item/000362.html







  • http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/research/grqg.html







  • http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/qg.html








  • http://physics.syr.edu/research/relativity/rel-fac.html








  • http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/jwb/qg.4d.html







  • http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/hamber.html







  • http://simscience.org/membranes/advanced/essay/gravity_simulation1.html







  • http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/emil/Slides/mottola.html







  • http://www.kps.or.kr/~kpsjnl/jp/jp1997/jp30-2/jp349/jp349.html








  • http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/Research/activities/grqg.phtml







  • http://cs-server.aston.ac.uk/~barnesa/publications.html







  • http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/staff/efurse/Maths-is-Scruffy/Penrose-Maths-and-AI/Need-quantum-gravity.html







  • http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/_vti_bin/shtml.dll/PressReleases/pr_whipple.html








  • http://www.amtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/Report96-html/Report96-html.html








  • http://digerati.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smolin.html







  • http://www.phy.syr.edu/research/randomsurfaces/tour.html






  • http://www.cs.aston.ac.uk/~barnesa/publications.html







  • http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~anton/html/Abstract/clifford.html







  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/contents.html







  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node29.html







  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node1.html







  • http://phy.syr.edu/research/relativity/rel-fac.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node8.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node7.html













  • http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_home.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node26.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node23.html













  • http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/Xqugravity.html













  • http://www.dallas.net/~matzke/physcomp/physicstoday.html













  • http://ds.dial.pipex.com/index/Science-Computing-and-Technology/Science-Computing-and-Technology-Physics-1.html














  • http://newton.skku.ac.kr/research-interest/research-interest.html













  • http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~des/HCM.html













  • http://www.workpage.com/g/16/006g.htm













  • http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smolin.html













  • http://qso.lanl.gov/~carmen/noghost.html













  • http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/pubNoVol1.html













  • http://artemis.phyast.pitt.edu/thesis/index.html













  • http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/pg/contents.htm













  • http://www.npac.syr.edu/techreports/html/0750/abs-0761.html













  • http://www.npac.syr.edu/techreports/html/0350/abs-0361.html













  • http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/













  • http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/lectures/lecture27/lecture27.html














  • http://www.phy.syr.edu/research/relativity/symposium.html













  • http://suhep.phy.syr.edu/research/relativity/symposium.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node24.html













  • http://www.bbk.ac.uk/Departments/Physics/tpru.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/pubNoVol1.html













  • http://www.simscience.org/membranes/advanced/glossary/q.html













  • http://euler.math.hkbu.edu.hk/conference/genrel.html













  • http://ktm.kaist.ac.kr/~racs/links/cs/cspaper/RTB-paper/papers/quantumgrav.html













  • http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~phyteoe/research/strings.html













  • http://www.cordis.lu/tmr/src/grants/fmbi/950428.htm













  • http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/emil/sgrav.html













  • http://physics.syr.edu/research/randomsurfaces/lat/node1.html













  • http://www.ift.uni.wroc.pl/~poff/symposia/kar99.html













  • http://www.physics.brandeis.edu/cosmo.htm













  • http://www.iafe.uba.ar/relatividad/fabian.html













  • http://www.harc.edu/96_annualreport/page09.html













  • http://phy.syr.edu/research/relativity/symposium.html













  • http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/science/sokal-soc-txt.html













  • http://physics.syr.edu/research/randomsurfaces/lat/lat.html













  • http://www.nr.no/~soleng/papers/strings.html













  • http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/sciencewars.html













  • http://digerati.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/davies.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node13.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-13loll/node52.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-13loll/node17.html













  • http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/node5.html 2.3













  • http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/general/sokal.html













  • http://physics.syr.edu/research/randomsurfaces/













  • http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/cnfGrHg.html













  • http://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/asc/knihovna/publik95/publ29.htm













  • http://www.nonlocal.com/quantum-d/posts/srh_9-5-96.html













  • http://www.ap.univie.ac.at/users/fe/qg/













  • http://www-itp.unibe.ch/~whelan/thesis.html










  • What is Quantum Gravity

    Finally, string theory started out as a generalization of quantum field theory where instead of point particles, string-like objects propagate in a fixed spacetime background. Although string theory had its origins in the study of quark confinement and not of quantum gravity, it was soon discovered that the string spectrum contains the graviton, and that "condensation" of certain vibration modes of strings is equivalent to a modification of the original background.

    LQG does not have this feature to describe point particles, where a one dimensional string includes gravity.


    According to Wikipedia:

    1.loop quantum gravity makes too many assumptions
    2. according to the logic of the renormalization group, the Einstein-Hilbert action is just an effective description at long distances

    3. loop quantum gravity is not a predictive theory

    4. loop quantum gravity has not offered any non-trivial self-consistency checks

    5. loop quantum gravity is isolated from particle physics

    6. loop quantum gravity does not guarantee that smooth space as we know it will emerge as the correct approximation of the theory at long distances

    7. loop quantum gravity violates the rules of special relativity

    8. the discrete area spectrum is not a consequence, but an assumption of loop quantum gravity

    9. the discrete area spectrum is not testable

    10. loop quantum gravity provides us with no tools to calculate the S-matrix

    11. loop quantum gravity does not really solve any UV problems

    12. loop quantum gravity is not able to calculate the black hole entropy, unlike string theory

    13. loop quantum gravity has no tools to answer other important questions of quantum gravity

    14. the criticisms of loop quantum gravity regarding other fields of physics are completely misguided

    15.loop quantum gravity calls for "background independence" are misguided

    16.loop quantum gravity is not science


    The numbered points are connected to deeper explanations.

    Criticisms of string theory can follow in someone else's post. With the group in favor of LQG they should be able together their heads and come up with lots of things

    Current theories of gravity are based on the geometric curvature of space.

    Current theories of other fundamental forces in the universe are 'quantum field theories', where particles pass other particles back and forth among themselves to interact.
    We know that geometric gravity theories conflict with quantum field theories, and that this conflict means that we don't know what happens under extreme conditions.

    A quantum theory of gravity would involve particles passing 'gravitons' back and forth among themselves. This quantum theory would probably be a more accurate description of gravity, and might be accurate enough to describe the extreme conditions found at the center of a black hole.

    David Palmer
    for Ask a High-Energy Astronomer


    Quantum Gravity

    Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify the subjects of Quantum mechanics and General relativity.

    Much of the difficulty in merging these theories comes from the radically different assumptions that these theories have on how the universe works. Quantum mechanics depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of either Newtonian mechanics or special relativity. Einstein's theory of general relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as mass moves. The most obvious ways of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) run quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. Gravity particles would attract each other and if you add together all of the interactions you end up with many infinite results which can not easily be cancelled out. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where the interactions do result in some infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.

    Another difficulty comes from the success of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Both have been highly successful and there are no
    known phenomenon that contradict the two. The energies and conditions at which quantum gravity are likely to be important are inaccessible to laboratory experiments. The result of this is that there are no experimental
    observations which would provide any hints as to how to combine the two.

    The general approach taken in deriving a theory of quantum gravity is to
    assume that the underlying theory will be simple and elegant and then to
    look at current theories for symmetries and hints for how to combine them
    elegantly into a overarching theory. One problem with this approach is
    that it is not known if quantum gravity will be a simple and elegant theory.

    Such a theory is required in order to understand those problems involving the combination of very large mass or energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behaviour of black holes, and the origin of the universe.

    There are a number of proposed quantum gravity theories and proto-theories, including (for example) string theory and the loop quantum gravity of Smolin and Rovelli - see http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/
    The Noncommutative geometry of Alain Connes, and Twistor theory, of Roger Penrose, are also theories of quantum gravity


    The Quantum Gravity Concept Map is a highly experimental work: it's goals are to help the author organize his own understanding of the subject, and to test the hypothesis that html is a natural language for the construction of a concept map.

    Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify the theory of quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. The ultimate goal is a unified framework for all fundamental forces—a theory of everything


    A history of the Planck values provides interesting material for reflections on timely and premature discoveries in the history of science. Today, the Planck values are more a part of physics itself than of its history. They are mentioned in connection with the cosmology of the early universe as well as in connection with particle physics. In considering certain problems associated with a unified theory (including the question of the stability of the proton), theorists discovered a characteristic mass ~ 1016mp (mpis the proton mass). To ground such a great value, one first refers to the still greater mass 1019mp. In the words of Steven Weinberg:

    This is known as the Planck mass, after Max Planck, who noted in 1900 that some such mass would appear naturally in any attempt to combine his quantum theory with the theory of gravitation. The Planck mass is roughly the energy at which the gravitational force between particles becomes stronger than the electroweak or the strong forces. In order to avoid an inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity, some new features must enter physics at some energy at or below 1019 proton masses. (Weinberg 1981, p. 71).

    The fact that Weinberg takes such liberties with history in this quotation is evidence of the need to describe the real historical circumstances in which the Planck mass arose. As we saw, when Planck introduced the mass (ch/G)1/2 (~ 1019mp) in 1899, he did not intend to combine the theory of gravitation with quantum theory; he did not even suppose that his new constant would result in a new physical theory. The first "attempt to combine the quantum theory with the theory of gravitation," which demonstrated that "in order to avoid an inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity, some new features must enter physics," was made by Bronstein in 1935. That the Planck mass may be regarded as a quantum-gravitational scale was pointed out explicitly by Klein and Wheeler twenty years later. At the same time, Landau also noted that the Planck energy (mass) corresponds to an equality of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.

    Theoretical physicists are now confident that the role of the Planck values in quantum gravity, cosmology, and elementary particle theory will emerge from a unified theory of all fundamental interactions and that the Planck scales characterize the region in which the intensities of all fundamental interactions become comparable. If these expectations come true, the present report might become useful as the historical introduction for the book that it is currently impossible to write, The Small-Scale Structure of Space-Time.


    The struggle to free ourselves from background structures began long before Einstein developed general relativity, and is still not complete. The conflict between [B]Ptolemaic and Copernican cosmologies[/B], the dispute between Newton and Leibniz concerning absolute and relative motion, and the modern arguments concerning the `problem of time' in quantum gravity -- all are but chapters in the story of this struggle. I do not have room to sketch this story here, nor even to make more precise the all-important notion of `geometrical structure'. I can only point the reader towards the literature, starting perhaps with the books by Barbour [9] and Earman [15], various papers by Rovelli [25,26,27], and the many references therein.

    String theory has not gone far in this direction. This theory is usually formulated with the help of a metric on spacetime, which is treated as a background structure rather than a local degree of freedom like the rest. Most string theorists recognize that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and by now many are struggling towards a background-free formulation of the theory. However, in the words of two experts [18], ``it seems that a still more radical departure from conventional ideas about space and time may be required in order to arrive at a truly background independent formulation.