Beyond Spacetime?

As well as bringing the accelerator's counter-rotating beams together, LHC insertion magnets also have to separate them after collision. This is the job of dedicated separators, and the US Brookhaven Laboratory is developing superconducting magnets for this purpose. Brookhaven is drawing on its experience of building the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which like the LHC is a superconducting machine. Consequently, these magnets will bear a close resemblance to RHIC's main dipoles. Following a prototyping phase, full-scale manufacture has started at Brookhaven and delivery of the first superconducting separator magnets to CERN is foreseen before the end of the year.

Now some people do not like "alternate views" when looking at Sean's picture. But if you look at it, then look at the picture below, what saneness, sameness, could have affected such thinking?

Lisa Randall:

"You think gravity is what you see. We're always just looking at the tail of things."

So we look for computerized versions to help enlighten. To "see" how the wave front actually embues circumstances and transfers gravitonic perception into other situations.



Was this possible without understanding the context of the pictures shared? What complexity and variable sallows us to construct such modellings in computers?



Okay so you know now that lisa Randall's picture was thrown inhere to hopefully help uyou see what I am saying about gravitonic consideration.

Anything beyond the spacetime we know, exists in dimensional perspectives, and the resulting "condensative feature" of this realization is "3d+1time." The gravitonic perception is "out there?" :)

Attributes of the Superfluids

Now it is with some understanding that the "greater energy needed" with which to impart our views on let's say "reductionism" has pointed us in the direction of the early universe.

So we say "QGP" and might say, "hey, is there such a way to measure such perspectives?" So I am using the graph, to point you in the right direction.



So we talk about where these beginnings are, and the "idea of blackholes" makes their way into our view because of th reductionistic standpoint we encountered in our philosophical ramblings to include now, "conditions" that were conducive to microstate blackhole creation.

The energy here is beyond the "collidial aspects" we encounter, yet, we have safely move our perceptions forward to the QGP? We have encounter certain results. You have to Quantum dynamically understand it, in a macro way? See we still talk about the universe, yet froma microscopic perception.

Let's move on here, as I have.

If you feel it too uncomfortable and the "expanse of space quantumly not stimulating" it's okay to hold on to the railings like I do, as I walked close to the "edge of the grand canyon."

So here we are.

I gave some ideas as to the "attributes of the superfluids" and the history in the opening paragraph, to help perspective deal with where that "extra energy has gone" and how? So you look for new physics "beyond" the current understanding of the standard model.

So, it was appropriate to include the graviton as a force carrier? Qui! NOn?

Lisa Randall's Theoretical Insights

The picture above was shown because of another picture in which I thought deserved comparison. The reason for this, would help the mind understand how such an image could be explained in a "easy and suttle way?"

So look at this picture above and then at the one to follow.



The very ideas are of extra dimensions are very progressive, and are not without some history. Some people will label anything as crackpot, without undertanding the history of these discussions.



I was thinking here of Banchoff, and the imaging that he deals with. While he is speaking from a mathematical position that imaging of a 2d screen does wonders in how 5d perception are presently engaged in the veryday world of computer screens and the like.



But to think about the picture painted by Dali, it is not without it's mathematical inclinations, that a painter like him may wonder about the "elevation" to spiritual thinking, with such thought embued with our look at the mathematical world, with which we assign our "spiritual principles?"

The Under a Lamppost Mystery?

Second, we must be wary of the "God of the Gaps" phenomena, where miracles are attributed to whatever we don't understand. Contrary to the famous drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost, here we are tempted to conclude that the keys must lie in whatever dark corners we have not searched, rather than face the unpleasant conclusion that the keys may be forever lost.

So what is the exercise here? What was happening in Clifford's mind when he wrote this thread? Was it about funding? Was it about the probabilities of life in the universe? Was it Lisa Randall's views on Brandenberger-Vafa? Hmmm.....

Inverse Brandenberger-Vafa-upgraded to brane gas cosmology?

Of course I tried to find out the meaning of the lamppost while operating under certain contraints. I think I understand now having googalized the statement?

So this philsophical position is really quite interesting then? Did Lisa Randall actually look at this?

Was Jacque's Distler link to Lisa Randall's warppassage blog credible?

A comment to the above?

Jimmy Cerra-March 13, 2005 06:42 PM

I posted a comment last night in Lisa Randall’s blog, and now the entire thing is gone! I hope I didn’t scare her away. :-(

Was this link have something to do with the statements be complied from the The Great Filter - Are We Almost Past It? byRobin Hanson

Wow this conspiracy is really taken on a life of it's own and has become really mysterious? Almost as if, "the tracking of the information," may have lead any mind to think that some ulterior motive and organization is behind the essential question on the authority of life developement in the cosmos? Qui? Non!

Or does it actually have something to do with the "Bad Twin" by Gary Troup? Check it out!

Can fans of ABC's Lost (Wednesday, 9 ET/PT) find clues in Bad Twin, a just-published novel with mysterious links to the hit TV show?
Maybe. And if so, it boosts the popular fan theory that the island on which the cast is stranded is purgatory. Fueling the supposition: The author's name, Gary Troup (a nom de plume), is an anagram for "purgatory."

Wow, it is really amazing that I started out with Clifford's post and I actually ended up here. Using such meme's i our culture and convoluted the phrasing has some interetsing consequences if we cannot back to the original reasons as to why such a lamppost comment was ever made. It is a mystery for me because the road taken can lead in so many directions, never mind about the periphery of light to the edge that shines the key analogy..

Concepts of the Fifth Dimension

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

Oskar Klein September 15, 1894 - February 5, 1977

Dealing With a 5D World

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

Herein, I also make the assumption:

The Spacetime Fabric, "is" the Fifth dimension.

Now of course, how do such assumptions make their way into my thinking and visualizations that I do? The seeing, of what mathematics and it's symbology had done for those who might see the geometry of expression, as a very vital way of thinking in the abstract world of mind, analogous, to the computer screen in front of us?


Juan Maldacena:

The strings move in a five-dimensional curved space-time with a boundary. The boundary corresponds to the usual four dimensions, and the fifth dimension describes the motion away from this boundary into the interior of the curved space-time. In this five-dimensional space-time, there is a strong gravitational field pulling objects away from the boundary, and as a result time flows more slowly far away from the boundary than close to it. This also implies that an object that has a fixed proper size in the interior can appear to have a different size when viewed from the boundary (Fig. 1). Strings existing in the five-dimensional space-time can even look point-like when they are close to the boundary. Polchinski and Strassler1 show that when an energetic four-dimensional particle (such as an electron) is scattered from these strings (describing protons), the main contribution comes from a string that is close to the boundary and it is therefore seen as a point-like object. So a string-like interpretation of a proton is not at odds with the observation that there are point-like objects inside it.

(Wikipedia 23 April 2006)

Similarly, in general relativity, the fourth dimension is manifested in observable three dimensions as the curvature of path of a moving infinitesimal (test) particle. 't Hooft has speculated that the fifth dimension is really the spacetime fabric.

Linked paragraph above was pointed out to a link you to further thoughts on this. It was a strange revelation of sorts to think that such a process could lead you to such thinking, as well, as leading one to understand how General Relativity becomes a result of of String theory.

It just made so much sense as I watched this developement take place in this geometrical extension of thought, that to a beginning, from a point to a line to a plane, was raised in mind, as a short cut to the brane world understandings. I really do not undertsand how I made this jump, but never the less, it took me to a fifth dimensional referencing.



The work of Banchoff helped in this understanding. In using image production, our 2d computer screens, as example, shows the work we are doing in the abstract space of mind.

While I am still ever the student, such thinking moved from the ideas of General Relativity, and it's geoemtrical nature, moves one into the dynamical regions of thought. Held, in regards to those curvatures. I just tend to see them in this way after understanding the "geometrical nature." So too, the undertanding of General Relativity means, and in this assumption, "gravity" becomes the terminology that I see in the dynamcis of that universe.

Can I help seeing the thought of humanity so capable in the mind, to relate choices to the heart and the feather weighting truth, that I also had come to see the gravity of that situation? IN such thoughts, Einsteins analogy of the Pretty girl always come to mind. It was a conceptual leap of sorts, as well as beautifully laid out model of GR as to our understanding in terms of what gravity means.

From strong to weak, and all the understanding of the place, where a flat plane of which no gravity exists, is a place where such transitions take place in my mind. Is this true or not? The very thinking of brane developement lead me to think in a 2 dimensional framework, yet I am well aware of the fifth dimensional views that this framework supplies. Is it wrong? I would have to rely on competent readers of the Brane world to have them say ye or nay, as to the thoughts being portrayed here.

(Wikipedia 23 April 2006)

In physics and mathematics, a sequence of N numbers can be understood to represent a location in an N-dimensional space. When N=5, one of these numbers is sometimes colloquially called the fifth dimension. This usage may occur in casual discussions about the fourth dimension, which, in the context of physics, refers to time, coming after the first three spatial dimensions (up/down, left/right and forwards/backwards). 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.

Lisa Randall:

My most recent research is about extra dimensions of space. Remarkably, we can potentially "see" or "observe" evidence of extra dimensions. But we won't reach out and touch those dimensions with our fingertips or see them with our eyes. The evidence will consist of heavy particles known as Kaluza-Klein modes that travel in extra-dimensional space. If our theories correctly describe the world, there will be a precise enough link between such particles (which will be experimentally observed) and extra dimensions to establish the existence of extra dimensions. Dangling Particles,By LISA RANDALL, Published: September 18, 2005 New York Yimes

The extensions beyond what we had always taken for meaning as "seeing," is the undertanding that all 3 space coordinated directions with time, are embedded in some "design" beyond that frame of reference held to General Relativity. If it wasn't, how could anything working beyond this, be found as a coordinated result?

(Wikipedia 23 April 2006)











Figure 2. Clebsch's Diagonal Surface: Wonderful

Computer Language and Math Joined from Artistic Impressionism?

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."- Lisa Randall

Cubist Art: Picasso's painting 'Portrait of Dora Maar'
Cubist art revolted against the restrictions that perspective imposed. Picasso's art shows a clear rejection of the perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as though they were painted by someone from the 4th dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously.

Sean from Cosmic Variance writes his opening post by including the title, "The language of Science".


I would have said maths as well, yet, as a Layman there is much for me to learn.


THOMAS BANCHOFF has been a professor of mathematics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1967. He has written two books and fifty articles on geometric topics, frequently incorporating interactive computer graphics techniques in the study of phenomena in the fourth and higher dimensions

The marriage between computer and math language(Banchoff) I would say would be important from the prospective of displaying imaging, seen in the development of abstract language as used in numerical relativity? Accummalated data gained from LIGO operations. Time variable measures?



My first demonstration was with a Calabi Yau model of the torso. Visually seeing this way, helped to progress understanding. The transferance from the math structure to imaging in computer, to me, seemed very hard thing to do.


Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.

If the math is right, the "concepts spoken," will be right also?



How such reductionism is held to the values of science, is seen in the work of the calorimeters. Glast and LHC designs give introspective views of how fine our perspective is being shaped. Can we see the underlying imaging as a toll, respective of reductionism as seeing the dynamical and geoemtrical background to all events measured? LIGO in data accumulation, describing the infomration released into the bulk perspective.

Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS

In the theory of relativity, momentum is not proportional to velocity at such speeds.) Thus high-momentum particles will curve very little, while low-momentum particles will curve significantly; the amount of curvature can be quantified and the particle momentum can be determined from this value.

Some Distant Bounding Surface

I mean when I referred to fifth dimensional views you know that the computer screen includes not only it's functionability in relation to science, but adds that bit of extended flavour to model construction we call imaging right?

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.

Remember Brian Greene's is from 2001. What might have change since then with Brian Greene and his views about about that distant bounding surface. Of course to many of us it is a brane world recognition.



If we did not recognize what advancements might have been accomlished with mathematics and the fifth dimensional views on our computer screens? Could we ever really talk about such idealizations, without understanding that there are ways to look at this, and reductional valuations taken from fifth dimensional views down to 2? Our computer screen. Of course Brian Greene has included the thickness of the bounded surface, so, time had to be inclusive here would it not?:)

The Edge

Physics and everything we know in the world around us may really be tied to processes whose fundamental existence is not here around us, but rather exists in some distant bounding surface like some thin hologram, which by virtue of illuminating it in the right way can reproduce what looks like a 3-dimensional world. Perhaps our three dimensional world is really just a holographic illumination of laws that exist on some thin bounding slice, like that thin little piece of plastic, that thin hologram. It's an amazing idea, and I think is likely to be where physics goes in the next few years or in the next decade, at least when one's talking about quantum gravity or quantum string theory.

So how can such a thing as Brian calls a Bounded surface and relate it's thinness to a vast capability? Also in the cosmic perspective, to have brane collisions illustrated by Steinhardt, become much more then our views held to the surface mathematically inclined. To be revealled, in stringy dynamics, at the basis of our viewing?

Such creation slotted into the time frames of this beginning, is stil questioning the valuation of what existed before stringy ideas manifest, so what pray tell, could have ever been "the sun" in behind, that illuminates "shadows" on the wall?

The Randall-Sundrum braneworld model is characterized by ordinary matter being confined to a hypersurface embedded in a higher-dimensional manifold through which gravitational signals may propagate

Physics strings us along by Margaret Wertheim of LAtimes.com

In the latest, hottest Big Science tome — the delightfully titled "Warped Passages" — Harvard physicist Lisa Randall describes the idea that the universe we see around us is but one tiny part of a vast reality that may include an infinite number of other universes. Randall is an expert on both cosmology and that arcane branch of particle physics known as string theory. By marrying the two fields, she and her colleagues have formulated a picture in which our universe may be seen as a soap-film-like membrane (a "braneworld") sitting inside a much larger space: the bulk. According to general relativity, the universe we live in has four dimensions: three of space and one of time. Randall's work extends this framework and posits the existence of a fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is the bulk, and within its immeasurably expanded space, there is no reason to assume that ours is the only cosmos.

So there are amazing leaps here then to new world recognitions of ideologies that formed from where?

John Ma Pierre:

What is remarkable is that much of the recent progress in understanding non-perturbative aspects of string theory and supersymmetric gauge theories has been made in parallel, using each to gain knowledge and insights about the other. There are various reasons for this intimate connection between supersymmetric gauge theories and string theory. One is that supersymmetric gauge theories arise as low energy effective descriptions of compactified string theories in limits where gravity decouples. Another reason is that superstring theories can be formulated in backgrounds that contain D-branes, and supersymmetric gauge theories serve as effective world volume theories for these D-branes. In addition to these direct examples, it is sometimes the case that intuition about non-perturbative physics that is gained in one area can be directly applied to the other. An example of this is the guiding principle that singularities in the quantum moduli space of a low energy effective theory signal the appearance of new massless states. This was seen to be a generic phenomena in supersymmetric gauge theories and was subsequently applied to the resolution of conifold singularities by massless black holes in string theory.

Wow! More then five!:) Okay reference was made by Sean on a one liner about magic and his meeting in a bar. Where a sister as the science teacher explains this statement. Well it has been gathered up for consumption in other areas, so of course we have to explain this as now this conversation is leading other talks to consider more issues about what began as a mystery has no place in the developement of science.

I am a little dismayed by this, because anomlistic features without explanation would seem as such, while it is true, that it can be expalined afterwards, once we understood how something from the 21st century dropped into our laps for consideration:) We know what this means right? It had to be coisstent and logicall so repeatability can hav eother hands , for verification. How did you expalin it and lead them hwere one had not gone before?

That sounded like Startrek for a minute there:)

The Succession of thinking

How far indeed the the imagination can be taken to see such processes enveloped in how we percieve these changes all around us. Why is gravity so weak, here and now. I have jumped ahead but will lead into it from the other end of this article.

Never before had I encountered the reasoning of imaging behind the work of "conceptual frameworks" now in evidence. In how a mathmatician, or a scientist, like Einstein or Dirac, had some basis at which the design, of all that we endure, would have its's counterpart in this reality as substantial recognition of what must be done.

I don't think anyone now in the scientific arena needs to be reminded about what it takes to bring theory into the framework of cultural and societal developement, to see how it all actually is working. On and on now, I see this reverberating from Lisa Randall to all scientists that we encounter from one blog to the next, a recognition and developement of this visualization ability.

That Famous Equation and You , By BRIAN GREENE Op-Ed Contributor in New York Times, Published: September 30, 2005


Brian Greene:

After E = mc², scientists realized that this reasoning, however sensible it once seemed, was deeply flawed. Mass and energy are not distinct. They are the same basic stuff packaged in forms that make them appear different. Just as solid ice can melt into liquid water, Einstein showed, mass is a frozen form of energy that can be converted into the more familiar energy of motion. The amount of energy (E) produced by the conversion is given by his formula: multiply the amount of mass converted (m) by the speed of light squared (c²). Since the speed of light is a few hundred million meters per second (fast enough to travel around the earth seven times in a single second), c² , in these familiar units, is a huge number, about 100,000,000,000,000,000.

There are two links here.One by Peter Woit with reference to article and one toSean Carroll who further illucidates the article by Brian Greene.

So here I am at the other end of this referenced article, that other thoughts make their way into my mind. Previous discussison ongoing and halted. To todays references continued from all that we had encountered in what General Relativity surmizes.

That this issue about gravity is very real. So that's our journey then, is to understand how we would percieve the strength and weakness through out the spacetime and unification of a 3 dimension space and one of time, to some tangible reality within this coordinated frame Euclidean defined.

The Succession of Thinking

Mark helps us see in a way we might not of considered before.

Dark Matter and Extra-dimensional Modifications of Gravity

But the issue is much more complicated then first realized if we take this succension of thinking beyond the carefuly plotted course Einstein gave us all to consider.

Plato on Sep 27th, 2005 at 10:23 pm We were given some indications on this site about the state of affairs with Adelberger. Do you think this time span of proposed validation processes, were constructively and experimentally handled appropriately through it’s inception? As scientists would like to have seen all such processes handled in this respect?

So indeed I began to see this space as very much alive with energy that had be extended from it's original design to events that pass through all of creation, then how indeed could two views be established in our thiniking, to have Greene explain to us, that the world holds a much more percpetable view about what is not so understood in reality.

An Energy of Empty Space?

Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothingness. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property of space that Einstein discovered is that more space can actually come into existence. Einstein's gravity theory makes a second prediction: "empty space" can have its own energy. This energy would not be diluted as space expands, because it is a property of space itself; as more space came into existence, more of this energy-of-space would come into existence as well. As a result, this form of energy would cause the universe to expand faster and faster as time passes. Unfortunately, no one understands why space should contain the observed amount of energy and not, say, much more or much less.

All the while the ideas that would leave gravity without explanation in a flat euclidean space, gravity would have been left to that solid response without further expalnatin in a weak field manifestation. But it was always much more then this I think.

While being caution once on what the quantum harmonic oscillator is not, Smolin did not remove my thinking of what was all pervasive from what this "empty space" might have implied, that heretofor "it's strength" was a measure then of a bulk, and what better way in which to see this measure?

Taken in context of this succession, this place where such conceptual framework had been taken too, it was very difficult not to encounter new ways in which to understand how gravity could changed our perceptions.

Thalean views were much more then just issues about water and all her dynamical explanations. It presented a new world in which to percieve dynamical issues about which, straight line thinking could no longer endure. A new image of earth in all it's wander, no less then Greene's analysis to how this famous equation becomes evident in our everyday world. It presented a case for new geometries to emerge. Viable and strengthened resolve to work in abstract spaces that before were never the vsion of men and women who left earth. Yet it all had it's place to endure in this succession that we now have adbvanced our culture in ways that one would not have thought possible from just scientific leanings.

So now I return myself to Einstein's allegorical talk on what concept had taken, when a scientist had wondered on the valuation of time.

The Total Field

For me this title above strikes a cord somehow in the struggle and regard, leading in our comprehensions to the extension of the standard model. By bringing gravity into the picture and descibing the graviton teaming in the bulk of expression.

The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to grvaitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the toal field.

Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein

Well now the reason why this paragraph strikes such a chord with me, has everything to do with the information that I have progressed through, in order to reach this vision Lisa Randall does not think one asa layman is capable of? Now I should be fair here, and I am not judging personalities, but the essence of the statements about "observation" and "vision".

Lisa Randall:

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."

Now in my quest for comprehension, such building has gone on in my conceptual foundations, are ones that we are carefully lead through in theoretical developement. Ah so we see where such extensions have gone beyond th elayan's view then? To have such things of expression, in the computer world, as numerical relativity, is a nice way in which to round out the data and experience. But as she points out, we are talking about Physicists.

Lisa Randall:

Remarkably, we can potentially "see" or "observe" evidence of extra dimensions.

Those Russion Dolls

Well now. I have this strange picture in my head about "time variable images" we seen of the earth in measure, and such a statement above, by Einstein. It is information on the "total field" that struck immediately in my mind about all those things that lead one through to the comprehension of general relativity. It is indeed, about "gravity" and it indeed seen in the larger aspects of the cosmological scale. But then, how would such a thing take us down to scale in our look at quantum mechanical views. Other components of earth that efect time avraiableness and we are indeed driving this image of scale down to the component parts of our earth?



So I have this picture of earth here. I know its not so pretty, but it describes in greater context the world as you have not seen it before. This advancement in observation, is much more inherent in our culture now, that the grade with which we assign physicists and the lay persons, are really never that far apart. What was accomplished, was that leading infomration and theorectical developement paved the way for an "illustrous view" as to those I impart now. They were already there but never seen in context of each other and as a total field.



So now as I think about Lisa's words, I recognize more deeply the sigificance of how far our vision has been taken, not just in terms of the physicists view, but of how far we had been taken in layman terms as well. What then else retains this view about the total field that I had not show and in it writing, other images come to mind as follows.

So developing this sense in terms of relativity and views of Einstein in regards to the total filed had consequences in my mind about how we view things in new ways.

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 it has to be understood, that the total field is one which has inclusiveness such as these boxes indicate, that such views of our blue marble earth, do not consider as we lay "one" over the top of another. Such extensions to our views of earth, lead me to understand the complexity of these views in ways that we had not considered before, and with such a synoptical view, what indeed shall this total field say about earth? So that's where I am at. Much like, Glast, in it's own synoptical view about the range of our vision.

So we have this frame of reference now to consider. Our apprehensions about earth(some who share the climatic valuation) that we can now say, that Inverse square law contains information in relation to "these boxes". That if taken to "new heights" our climatic valuations about this new view of earth, how shall we judge now, that such Kaluza Klein modes held in relation to the expanding nature of this point(circle) can have energy valuations assigned right from the supersymmetrical vision ofa beginning, to have phases (symmetry breaking)with which our views have been generated, in what we see of earth now?



While indeed then, "light had been joined to gravity" how shall we wrap again the views of this earth, in what is now a teaming in this new place, where differences exist in our views. Strengths and weaknesses, are measures in this new abstracted view?

So we have this total view in mind, about the "total field" and I have taken us to a a abstracted space within the idealization of what exists here now as earth arose from some beginning point. To what the earth encapsulates.

How we view then such comsological events has a greater story as we look deep into space, and see the valution of those same cosmological events streaming past all things in existance, that such a gravitational view has arrows pointing in a certain direction. To ideas about comsological expansion and such. This has gone to far I think about our place in this new abstracted view of the universe:)

Point--> Line-->Plane <---> Point<-- String<-- Brane

Under the heading of Klein`s Ordering of the Geometries :

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.

Now the usual thinking here has been placed under intense thinking by the introduction of a new way in which to look at "geometry" that has gone through a "revision" in thinking.

New trigonometry is a sign of the times

Lubos Motl introduces this topic and link in his blog entry and from this this has caused great consternation in how I am seeing. I see Lisa Randall might counter this in terms of what the brain is capable of, in line with this revisionary seeing, and comparative examples of this geometry Lubos links.

Dangling Particles,By LISA RANDALL
Published: September 18, 2005 New York Yimes

Lisa Randall:

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen." I do theoretical research on string theory and particle physics and try to focus on aspects of those theories we might experimentally test. My most recent research is about extra dimensions of space. Remarkably, we can potentially "see" or "observe" evidence of extra dimensions. But we won't reach out and touch those dimensions with our fingertips or see them with our eyes. The evidence will consist of heavy particles known as Kaluza-Klein modes that travel in extra-dimensional space. If our theories correctly describe the world, there will be a precise enough link between such particles (which will be experimentally observed) and extra dimensions to establish the existence of extra dimensions.

But first before I get to the essence of the title of my blog entry, I like to prep the mind for what is seemingly a consistent move towards geometry that has it's basis in applicabilty to physics, and move through GR to a vast new comprehsnsion in non-euclidean geometries. Must we now move backwards that we had gained in insight, or was it recognition of the "length scales" that we now say, how could such a dynamcial view ever be assigned to the eucildean discription under the guise of brane world recognitions?

Moving Backwards?

What exactly do I mean here?

Well the idea is that if you move to fifth dimensional views, and there are ways to wrap this within our "Brains":) We then see the dynamcial nature of our neurons have found acceptable ways in which to see this brane feature. As well as, approaches in use of new processes in geometerical considerations as those linked by Lubos.

Dealing with 5D world



Thomas Banchoff is instrumental here is showing us that fifth dimensional views can be utilized in our computer screens, and such comparisons, reduce to a two dimensional frame, makes it very easy to accept this new way in which to attack the dynamcial nature of reality.

How indeed now could our computer screen act a liason with the reality of our world, when see from screen imagery effects, that all the rules of order have been safely applied for inspection and consistancy in physics approaches.

Searching for Extra Dimensions

Sometimes you have to venture further into the logic of strings to see where these applications are revealling themselves for consideration first and then work from the idea of compacted states and the relevance of dimensial attributes for consideration? Here the question points to bulk information in relation to the blackhole, three brane wrap to gravitational collapse. How is this clcical nature revealling itself and not limiting time to a end, but to the recognition of the value of "time" in those dimensions.

The idea of taffy seems like a very tactile experience for me, becuase of how I see entropic issues relevant to unsynmmetrical views of symmetry breaking, and this relation not only to the blackhole expansion that takes place but the recognition of previous states of existed at high energy scale.



Did Picasso know about Einstein?

Was it a coincidence that Picasso developed Cubism at about the same time that Einstein published his theory of relativity? Arthur I Miller thinks not, as he explains to Ciara Muldoon

You have to understand, that artist rendition must be implored sometimes to help good scientists extend their visions of things most appropriately. I found evidence of this, when reading about Arthur Miller, and looking at what Penrose did when he implored the skills of Escher?

Basic intuition tells us that there are three spatial dimensions in our universe. In more normal terms, this means that we are able to move along three different axes (basic directions) of motion, back/forth, left/right, and up/down. Einstein, in his theory of relativity, proposes that time is also a dimension, similar to the three spatial dimensions, except for the fact that we do not control our motion through it. We almost never consider the idea that there could be more than these dimensions, because we have never experienced anything that suggests this.

In context of this information what would degrees of freedom have to do with how we see these extra spatial dimensions signify. What rules tell us what actions will take place there?

What extra dimensions, you probably think, having just read the title. We know very well that the world around us is three-dimensional. We know East from West, North from South, up from down – what extra dimensions could there possibly be if we never see them?

Well, it turns out that we do not really know yet how many dimensions our world has. All that our current observations tell us is that the world around us is at least 3+1-dimensional. (The fourth dimension is time. While time is very different from the familiar spatial dimensions, Lorentz and Einstein showed at the beginning of the 20th century that space and time are intrinsically related.) The idea of additional spatial dimensions comes from string theory, the only self-consistent quantum theory of gravity so far. It turns out that for a consistent description of gravity, one needs more than 3+1 dimensions, and the world around us could have up to 11 spatial dimensions!

For those who do not understand the issues in regards to the compactified dimensions you have to understand the implications that this topic speaks too. I have listened to well intentioned indivduals reject this notion outright, without further explanation. To me ,logical discourse must speak to this.



If you think about Plato's cave you soon learn what is encouraged here again? From not the usual framework the cave offered us, as we look out from inside and explain the shadow figures on the wall. It is a paradoxial twist on human comprehension?

Science fiction characters make travel through extra dimensions look as easy as getting on the subway, but physicists have never taken them seriously. Now in the 6 December PRL a team proposes a radical idea: We may indeed live in a world with more than three spatially infinite dimensions, yet the extra dimensions might be essentially imperceptible. For years researchers have discussed extra dimensions that might be "compactified"--curled up to a very small size--but no one thought that non-compact dimensions could exist without obvious effects on experiments.

Many physicists hope that string theory will ultimately unify quantum mechanics, the theory of small-scale interactions, with general relativity, the theory of gravity. String theory requires at least nine spatial dimensions, so proponents normally claim that all but three of them are compactified and only accessible in extremely high-energy particle collisions. As an alternative to compactified dimensions, Lisa Randall of Princeton University and Raman Sundrum, now of Stanford University, describe a scenario in which an extra, infinite dimension could have remained undetected so far.