If it's Not a Soccer Ball, What is it?

Timaeus concludes

And so now we may say that our account of the universe has reached its conclusion. This world of ours has received and teems with living things, mortal and immortal. A visible living thing containing visible things, and a perciptible God, the image of the intelligible Living Thing. Its grandness, goodness, beauty and perfection are unexcelled. Our one universe, indeed, the only one of its kind, has come to be.

WMap currently expressed, has some explaining to do. While they talk about ekroptic universe and such, such cyclical natures need some reference with which to speak, in order for such idealizations and perspective form around the information WMap has currently released.

The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron. He says simply "God used this solid for the whole universe, embroidering figures on it". So,I suppose it's a good thing that the right triangles comprising this quintessence are incommensurate with those of the other four elements, since we certainly wouldn't want the quintessence of the universe to start transmuting into the baser subtances contained within itself!

Higher abstractness, in the case of leaving euclidean perspective, are part of the realization when you look at the WMAP, that is being presented. While sound implications are being implied, they are necessary if it is understood the role they will play in such analogies of a larger global pewrspectve then the one seen in how gaussian coordinates and curvatures are implied, in Omega features, and critical density.

A Finite Dodecahedral Universe

According to the team, who published their study in the 9 October 2003 issue of Nature, an intriguing discrepancy in the temperature fluctuations in the afterglow of the big bang can be explained by a very specific global shape of space (a "topology"). The universe could be wrapped around, a little bit like a "soccer ball", the volume of which would represent only 80% of the observable universe! (figure 1) According to the leading cosmologist George Ellis, from Cape Town University (South Africa), who comments on this work in the "News & Views" section of the same issue: "If confirmed, it is a major discovery about the nature of the universe".

So having a greater perspective on this kind of mapping is necessary. While I reference tunneling and such, implicate bee's travelling or satelittes using pathways of least resistance, how does such states have been reached, if you did not have the perspective that is necessary in seeing how the universe is laid out geometrically?

Scientists Get Glimpse of First Moments After Beginning of Time by DENNIS OVERBYE

"If this holds up to the test of time, it's a real landmark," said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist and cosmic microwave expert at M.I.T. "I really feel like the universe has given up one more clue," he said.

The quantum gravity issues implored, and speculated, have a diverse model selection with which to talk about? John Baez's view came up when I seen the model in which he choose for such understanding. Having seen the "membrane" idealizations used in qauntum gravity models, helped with the perspective that he used, but like Plato his definition fell short to me of the substructure(a discrete meaasure in bubble facets) of the cosmo that would relegated some model, to perfect our view microscopically, as well as macroscopically.




Tegmark and others disproved this, so what is the nature of the cosmo in question, and it's shape? So having understod the idealization of flat gemetries of the universe, how could such negative features be understood as the hyperbolic understanding became part and parcel of GR in our understanding of the gravity issues?

With the discovery of sound waves in the CMB, we have entered a new era of precision cosmology in which we can begin to talk with certainty about the origin of structure and the content of matter and energy in the universe.-Wayne Hu

Such analogies were very important in raising our understanding of what might have been seen in the membrane ideals of how gravity could act in bubble boundaries conditions. While such faces might have been understood in such analogies of John Baez's, a spherical harmonics would have had to been much smoother in our understanding?

Imploring the analogies and models in this respect made it much easier to see on another level, in non euclidean realities. Further then, the understanding of gaussian coordinates. You knew this was part and parcel of a larger picture understood in GR?



The Sound of Gravitational Waves

We can't actually hear gravational waves, even with the most sophisticated equipment, because the sounds they make are the wrong frequency for our ears to hear. This is similar in principle to the frequency of dog whistles that canines can hear, but that are too high for humans. The sounds of gravitional waves are probably too low for us to actually hear. However, the signals that scientists hope to measure with LISA and other gravitational wave detectors are best described as "sounds." If we could hear them, here are some of the possible sounds of a gravitational wave generated by the movement of a small body inspiralling into a black hole.

So there is a culmination in my views as I now look at the new WMap presented. A greater understanding implored in geometric realization, that had to be taken down to the microscopic where quantum gravity existed, yet, the geometry used, what new math would this be? It was encapsulted in the overall understanding of cyclical natures.



Is there such a thing, as isometrical relations of orbitals, in cosmological designs? A Classical definition of the Quantum World perhaps?

Some patterns are telling to me of the way in which the universe, and the galaxies in which had formed, would have followed some geometrical all inclusive pattern, that we see unfolding from place to place, and assigning, specific polarization points within the view of the WMAP.



Now, look at the map below.

The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) mission is designed to determine the geometry, content, and evolution of the universe via a 13 arcminute FWHM resolution full sky map of the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The choice of orbit, sky-scanning strategy and instrument/spacecraft design were driven by the goals of uncorrelated pixel noise, minimal systematic errors, multifrequency observations, and accurate calibration. The skymap data products derived from the WMAP observations have 45 times the sensitivity and 33 times the angular resolution of the COBE DMR mission. The WMAP mission characteristics are summarized in the table below.

So by using information in the Chladni plate exhibit within this site, it becomes a interesting picture when such "spectrum analysis" make themselves representable in "color" as a variation of the landscape.

The temperature fluctuations of the Cosmic Background Radiation may be decomposed into a sum of spherical harmonics , much like the sound produced by a music instrument may be decomposed into ordinary harmonics. The "fundamental" fixes the height of the note (as for instance a 440 hertz acouctic frequency fixes the "A" of the pitch), whereas the relative amplitudes of each harmonics determine the tone quality (such as the A played by a piano differs from the A played by a harpsichord). Concerning the relic radiation, the relative amplitudes of each spherical harmonics determine the power spectrum, which is a signature of the geometry of space and of the physical conditions which prevailed at the time of CMB emission.

But if you are really interested in the way we see the universe how would such patterns illustrate what is being shown in the WMAP. A Chladni plate perhaps as spoken in reference. I needed a model with which to work the whole geometrical picture.

If you sprinkle fine sand uniformly over a drumhead and then make it vibrate, the grains of sand will collect in characteristic spots and figures, called Chladni patterns. These patterns reveal much information about the size and the shape of the drum and the elasticity of its membrane. In particular, the distribution of spots depends not only on the way the drum vibrated initially but also on the global shape of the drum, because the waves will be reflected differently according to whether the edge of the drumhead is a circle, an ellipse, a square, or some other shape.

In cosmology, the early Universe was crossed by real acoustic waves generated soon after Big Bang. Such vibrations left their imprints 300 000 years later as tiny density fluctuations in the primordial plasma. Hot and cold spots in the present-day 2.7 K CMB radiation reveal those density fluctuations. Thus the CMB temperature fluctuations look like Chaldni patterns resulting from a complicated three-dimensional drumhead that

See:

Plato's Defintion of God

Sound of the Landscape

B Field Manifestations

Resonance:Brownian Motion

The Singing Bowl

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points-Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

What would such gravitons in the bulk concentration mean, to those whose value might have seen sound expressed, as low and rumbling, while energy would have been freer to implement the expression of higher pitched notes?



Some might have never gotten the greater significance, or the relation to the Kernel of Truth, but hidden behind all the facades of humanities thoughts about sound, it was with the understdanding of Joseph Weber's work, that I too, became intrigued with the cylinder bars and sound.

In the late 1950s, Weber became intrigued by the relationship between gravitational theory and laboratory experiments. His book, General Relativity and Gravitational Radiation, was published in 1961, and his paper describing how to build a gravitational wave detector first appeared in 1969. Weber's first detector consisted of a freely suspended aluminium cylinder weighing a few tonnes. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Weber announced that he had recorded simultaneous oscillations in detectors 1000 km apart, waves he believed originated from an astrophysical event. Many physicists were sceptical about the results, but these early experiments initiated research into gravitational waves that is still ongoing. Current gravitational wave experiments, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), are descendants of Weber's original work.

Now what does sound mean in this case? How far shall we go back with Kip Thorne, or John Wheeler? Would a good scientist know that the roots of these thoughts about string theory began long before the mathematical struggles became known in current day thoughts. That the roots began in relativity, and what relativity means geometrically as a gravitational force in consideration?

It required a graduation in thinking. Views in the abstract spaces that were less then understood, that without understanding how such thoughts lead from the classical world, would now move perspectve to it's strengths and weakeness as part of a larger view established from the standard model and beyond. It had to include all the fundamental forces and ultimately it's carriers?

The activity in string theory and quantum gravity is aimed at developing a quantum theory that incorporates the physics of gravity and is valid down to the smallest length scales, where conventional quantum field theory can no longer be applied. There has been rapid progress in this area in recent years, in part due to work of Princeton faculty and students, and it continues to be a fertile source of research problems.

Would These good scientists might have forgotten maybe, or because of the failure of Joesph Webers experiments, the very ideas of LIGO today, would not support the greater depth of seeing? In ways such structures would ring with the gravitational expansion and contraction, and allocated sound value in analogy? What use?

Might I have missed the nature of the bubble in geometric views, as we looked at the sonofusion idea manifested in the way that "time and the bubble's membrane," elastic in it's measure, might have symbolized a larger global view of all the things that it would contained within it. Even, it's magnetic field?



So some were better equiped to see spheres whithin spheres, and all bubble membranes as some topological derivation of Sklars's quandry of what line is a 5 or 1, in relation to the torus. How diffiuclt to undertand that then, inner bubble/line might have encapsulated the expression of Maxwell and all the equations, as being defined within the context of General Relativity and it's completion, as th eenvelope on the outer sphere called earth in space. Some might never have resolved such thinking to sucha bumpy world but it does indeed happen. Not only there, but in how such energies would have made themselves known as we turned this inside out, like some Klein bottled?



I know I have much to learn in the geometrical perspective, but I am trying.

Recognition of a Sphere that is Not so Round

Gravity is the force that pulls two masses together.

Since the earth has varied features such as mountains, valleys, and underground caverns, the mass is not evenly distributed around the globe. The "lumps" observed in the Earth's gravitational field result from an uneven distribution of mass inside the Earth. The GRACE mission will give us a global map of Earth's gravity and how it changes as the mass distribution shifts. The two satellites will provide scientists from all over the world with an efficient and cost-effective way to map the Earth's gravity field.

The primary goal of the GRACE mission is to map the Earth's gravity field more accurately than has ever been done before. You might ask, how will GRACE do this? Two identical spacecraft will fly about 200 kilometers apart. As the two GRACE satellites orbit the Earth they are pulled by areas of higher or lower gravity and will move in relation to each other. The satellites are located by GPS and the distance between them is measured by microwave signals. The two satellites do not just carry science instruments, they become the science instrument. When mass moves from place to place within the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, land or frozen surface (the "cryosphere"), the gravity field changes.

So while I was quite aware of what the earth contained in it's views as a planet on which we live, it was not without some understanding that such mass considerations woul have also included the "view of bubbles"? AS rings around this planet.

The way in which they can work to help push perspective inside/out? Is this wrong? Can no undertanding that leads to electrognagnetsm and gravity joined in the fifth dimensional perspective, lead to the dynamcial understanding of nature in accordance with the spacetime fabric and it's orientations?



Why then lagrange coordinates, and how we see the "hole in space" as satelittes that might choose the most easiest route to travel and least fuel to burn? What say the equillibrium status, had not been reached in the blackhle interior, as a anomlie of perception, in regards to the formation of the superfluid through such collidial events?

Nature in Analog Models

Plato:

"For everyone, as I think, must see that astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another."

Oh! how complete our world view would be, that I have moved quickly to the very question of all summations given. That while "visually" occupying the mind, we had been taken to the standard model's extension. That we moved beyond, to the "introduction of the graviton," as a force carrier? What world is that Plato?

Structuralists, like Plato we would be, that we seen not as Feynamn did, but as "platonic developers" as to the very alluring question of, "nature's form?" Lost was our view of the "interactions and processes" yet, seen in another way? That there is a discription ,of all of what these particles could be?

"Analogue Gravity"by Carlos Barceló and Stefano Liberati and Matt Visser

Analogue models of (and for) gravity have a long and distinguished history dating back to the earliest years of general relativity. In this review article we will discuss the history, aims, results, and future prospects for the various analogue models. We start the discussion by presenting a particularly simple example of an analogue model, before exploring the rich history and complex tapestry of models discussed in the literature. The last decade in particular has seen a remarkable and sustained development of analogue gravity ideas, leading to some hundreds of published articles, a workshop, two books, and this review article. Future prospects for the analogue gravity programme also look promising, both on the experimental front (where technology is rapidly advancing) and on the theoretical front (where variants of analogue models can be used as a springboard for radical attacks on the problem of quantum gravity).

Part of the theoretics I imagine, is trying to incorporate this into analog models for a deeper comprehension of concepts mathematically embued. Part of the deeper intuitive developement, is what attracted me to the questions about "creativity" and what can be immersed in minds of scientists. What they do with their days.

Murray Gellman:
On Plectics

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

As I read Feynman's words about what the scientist actually does, the human side of the scientist makes it very clear to me, that they are to be treated with the respect, as he conveyed his thoughts. As we might, treat someone who brings together "different ideas" to move conceptual understanding forward, much like those in the mathematical ways. Better to be ignored, eh?:)

Vision Can Move in the Small world

The Planck scale is the scale at which quantum gravity is believed to become important. At this scale the smooth structure of spacetime breaks down into some structure (strings, spin-foam, lattice, who knows?). The Planck length is approximately 10-35 m, which is very, very small. To get an idea of how tiny this is we can compare a Planck length LPl with the size of a proton and the size of Rhode Island. The radius of a proton is larger than the Planck length by roughly the same factor as the size of Rhode Island to the proton.

Did we ever comprehend how we would take our "vision" down to a world so small that we did not recognize that occupying the physical world of large things, there would be comparsions needed. That the "particles" that Murray Gellman speculated would emerge from some model, and become the constituents of a world created in the wonder of, "all these particles may be part of the some alternate form of the same thing?" This arose in the 1950's.

So before, Susskind and Nambu, Gellman held a interesting perspective, and from it, a question arose. It became the developing insight of string theory. Some, have abandoned the very question and idealization, having graduated to Brane world, does not mean, the very thoughts and principals embued in this focus to the small world, would have been discarded, just, that it will have gone through "revisions and progress" in conceptual design?

Analog models of quantum field theory in curved space

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

Plato as a Composer

Can a different kind of thinking encase the brain's ability to "envision the abstract of space" to know that it's harmonic values can be seen as the basis of experience?

Those who would conduct the orchestra, enlisted sounds, which make a whole compositon? One, from which, if physical sight had been remove, and focused internally, had just witnessed the particle world in shower, would lead one to the climatic vision of, "nature of things." From, "it's source?" What began before this whole musical interlude, much as if, the cosmo will wait for our question as to what was?

So now the very idea of the poem wording I developed here, "no time standing always new", had me thinking about how such a cyclical processes could have ever made its way into our "completeness of views". An extension, beyond the standard model. It was a logical question and place with which responsibility can be still held, regardless, of those who have spelt out the lineage of science in research in this way(string theory model), as some disrupted process in the way of thinking?

So how would we map this whole process, while we had been taken down to such reductionistic principals. The continuity resorting to structurally discrete, while pondering this structure( what model shall you insert here, Loop, Twistors, Strings)? There are "no rules and no physics" with which we can "initiate thinking" beyond the standard model? So we see the minds very busy with such introductions, professors hired to work the field of choices. Whether to teach or not? To be devoted to a specific area, or just ponder the most difficult question, as to the natures very structure?

So now we come to a important question, having recognized the power with which the Word "Plato or Aristotle will now be invoked in your mind. That the "archetypes" had been drawn and related. Any future reference, will be in the way Plato might of felt having held his views on music? Possibly, thought about the nature of the world with structure. Developed the forms, as constituents of the way the world exists now.


See:

Laval Nozzle and Blackholes

Accretion Disks

Quark Stars

CFT and the Tomato Soup Can

As always, the layman trying to develope the mathematical views?:)

Greg Kuperberg on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:11 pm

Conformal maps of the Earth are a great introduction to complex analysis. If you identify the Earth with the Riemann sphere, then the Mercator map is exp(i*z), while the quincuncial projection is a Weierstrass elliptic function. Or you could view it as a 2-to-1 conformal projection from a torus to a sphere with four ramified points. I imagine that it is relevant to one-loop calculations in string theory in that guise.

At what level has this map then progressed if we held such views to the "horizon and boundary conditions." That is now replaces what we talk about of earth, and now relay the mass consideration to events in the gravitational field? Has the mathematic hypothesized now, gone through a revision, and needed support of mathematical views?


Campbell's Soup Can A. Warhol

What mathematics would move our perception to the gravitational views seen there? Gary Horowitz relays the outside label of a can of a soup as the conformal surface, while the soup, the spacetime fabric?

On planet Earth, we tend to think of the gravitational effect as being the same no matter where we are on the planet. We certainly don't see variations anywhere near as dramatic as those between the Earth and the Moon. But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

So one would look at topography as something much different then what is laid out on this globe as "hills and valleys"?

So now this map, has this extra feature to it.

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondance between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinquish which discription is more fundamental.

Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

While on this topic it behooves me to think of the "horizon" and the mathematical construct that has taken us there. While we see to explain the nature of the effect in a fifth dimensional view, it had been reduced to "temperature" as a relation of this conformal view?

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

As much as one would try and ignore this position, you cannot get away from the mathematics or the approach and what this has culminated too.

I like Peter and his no nonsense views, but he has gone to far in rejecting the basis of "mathematical dialogue" in face of what D brane issue had been taken too?

Why would he reject mathematics on the one hand demonstrative of a particular point of view to which it has developed, then, ignore what position it had taken both string theory and Lee Smolins attempts at the disciption of the blackhole dynamics, from the views of that horizon?

With regards to the conformal field theory approach. While I am in my infancy, I recognize the views of Bekenstein Bound, and the hologrpahical approach. One must first learn to crawl, then walk I know, but how indeed does one get to the vision held, when he himself(who ever you like) cannot explain how such a mathematics like string theory, arose to help with our views of reality?

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 .

While one may use sites to give indicative values ot the information, can we ignore these assumptions mathematically driven. It paved the way for how we view things that we did not see before. Go ahead reject it then:)

Are we not looking for the Trigger?:)

Space and Time: Einstein and Beyond

You know it's amazing sometimes when the question in mind being put out there is not really answered right away, yet, it is strange that you ask and sure enough the right paper seems to find you.

Plato said:Can this difference be as simple as, “a determination between “being discrete, and implying continuity“?



Being stuck on the differences between String/M-theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, it was nice to find this paper and help bring me up to speed.


Prof. Abhay Ashtekar

Quantum geometry is a precise,mathematical theory in which the primary objects-the fundamentals excitations of geometry-are one dimensional. Just as a piece of cloth appears to be smooth, two dimensional continuum although it obviously is woven by one dimensional threads, the Spacetime of General Relativity appears as a four-dimensional continuum although it is in fact, a coherent superposition of these one-dimensional excitations.

Length Scales

One does not forget the uncertainty at this point, or the relationship of crackpotiness for not mentioning where and how this uncertainty comes into the picture. One must remember I am learning, and the most elegant thing to me so far has been General Relativity and I lay no claims to a theory or a idea, but relationships that pop into mind, that might not always be right. I have certainly come to some conclusion with the way I see tihs dynamcial nature of a quantum world, that hosts all this uncertainty.

If string theory is a theory of quantum gravity, then this minimum length scale should be at least the size of the Planck length,

T-duality is something unique to string physics. It's something point particles cannot do, because they don't have winding modes. If string theory is a correct theory of Nature, then this implies that on some deep level, the separation between large vs. small distance scales in physics is not a fixed separation but a fluid one, dependent upon the type of probe we use to measure distance, and how we count the states of the probe.
This sounds like it goes against all traditional physics, but this is indeed a reasonable outcome for a quantum theory of gravity, because gravity comes from the metric tensor field that tells us the distances between events in spacetime.

Both positons needed to address the "length scale" so this was not to hard a subject to look into once it became apparent, the avenues of discreteness would come into play, as well as continuity. The article linked help with these clarifications.

Unexpected High energies of Cosmic Rays

Plato said:

I am thinking about Lee Smolin’s history here in terms of discrete measures ( I am developing a perspective here in relation that will be complied later) How this effected the the way Lee may have viewed the background. I don’t want to speak for Lee Smolin, but I would like to make it simple.:)

Can this difference be as simple as, “a determination between “being discrete, and implying continuity“?

Where strings implying only tree features, while the approach to glast, as a “new view” supported by "Doubly Special Relativity", that Rovelli and Lee produced? This basis and history is what I am compiling.

One can ask any question and have it loaded, with lots of information. But just trying to bring something to simple clarity, even in conceptual framesworks is not always easy, if you don' ask the question?

Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit

The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK limit) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays from distant sources.

This limit was computed in 1966 by Kenneth Greisen, Vadem Kuzmin and Georgi Zatsepin, based on interactions predicted between the cosmic ray and the photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of 5×1019 eV would interact with CMB photons to produce pions. This would continue until their energy fell below the pion production threshold. Therefore, extragalactic cosmic rays with energies greater than this threshold energy should never be observed on Earth.

Unsolved problems in physics: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high, given that there are no possible near Earth sources, and that rays from distant sources should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?A number of observations have been made by the AGASA experiment that appear to show cosmic rays from distant sources with energies above this limit (whimsically dubbed Oh-My-God particles). The observed existence of these particles is the so-called GZK paradox or cosmic ray paradox.

Anyway, this was brought up and the questioned asked, because I did understand something that even if it was based on theoretical definitions might have been ones that were different from another, and brought the scorn of high energy physicists to wonder, where such principles had been raised in terms of quantum gravity?

So lookng at Lee's position and it becomes clear when one does the research on cosmological scenarios, that no wonder you want the string theorist on side, in this debate.

John Ellis is a fine educator when it come to laying the simple view to avenues related to both High energy physics and the relation in Pierre Auger determination.

Imagine microstate blackholes, and I wonder what "this trigger is" that would make life so much easier if we could determine the background,versus non background debate in terms of these experimental positions?



So strings and Loop quantum are face to face here in our informational predictions, about outcomes of the background versus the non-background, and getting to the source of this debate, from a physics interpretation and a expeirmental one, has always been the quest I think, and one supported by Lee Smolin.

So what rationality might have issue from the basis of that theoretcial position, and like I said before, it seems what pubic relations the top scientists have with the public, is to lay the foundation at the front door in a simple a way as possible from the blogosphere. What other way is so simple and direct tot he public that such distance could now been narrow to someone like Clifford in Cosmic INvariance, speaking to this very subject. Any the link below this sets the tune, and here th econtinuation of th equestion I had there that has not been repsonded too, becuase of the layman underdevleoped view of where top theoretorcians reside.

I'll give it a stab anyway. There seems to be a certain romance I have with the subject, that does not require money from any avenue, and such grants, far from the layman's view that doing this for fun, has been most rewarding becuase it brought me to see in different ways in the bulk, that others in simple life care not, and walk their way.

Plato said:

Seeking clarity in relation to experimental propositions of Glast 2006 and how it shall support one’s position over another? Will it?

High energy relevance had to meet each other in a way that cosmologically had something to do with high energy perceptions in relation to the trigger? Link on name.

The “beginning”, as first principles? Robert Laughlin saids no to “first principles”?:)

Since it is hard to put a link within a link, I thought I better put link on name here as well.

I really hate quoting myself, but alas the move is to continue regardless, so onto, "Gubser and structure information."

Lubos Motl said:

Steve Gubser (from Princeton) has just gave an interesting talk at the joint seminar in which he tried to convince us that structure formation (the process in which the early clumps of matter and the first galaxies were born) is a very interesting topic in cosmology, even for string theorists, in which some signs of new physics may be found if one tries to reproduce the observations.

How indeed would one see gluonic perception at this level bringing us ever closer to views on the window of the universe, and such leaidng indicators has to bring some noton to what started in the beginning? Non?

Lee Smolin's Case for Background Independence

While we were privy to the debate between Susskind and Smolin in a previous post, the origins and definitions have been drawn from the deeper requirements of an ideology.

Where do these begin, and we find the inner compulsion of a scientist to find the means and defintions to extend the basis of our perceptions on a basis that both agree.

Lubos reaffirms this many times, and is in concert, as many in string theory continue to hold to what this desire should be.

Lubos saids:

Some of Lee's points can be agreed with, for example:

It is desirable to find a background independent formulation of string/M-theory

Such a formulation would likely to answer the questions whether the landscape approach to string/M-theory is correct; why it's not; what it should be replaced with.

This post represents a becoming. From those deeper levels, such a stage must be set?

Good for Lee Smolin, and the work he has been doing for laying a foundation, that all see, must reside to an synoptic closure, before such progressions become. If it got Lee smolin and others thinking, then, it served it's purpose, and those who say, a waste of time, would have undertsood then, Lee Smolin would not be where he is today on the pdf file here written.

So has Lubos has then directed our perspective in relation to how Lee Smolin sees the issues, and we have found the direct relationship and difference between how M Theory apporaches and How LQG does.

Lubos Motl saids:

An attempt to revive Mach's principle means to argue that the gravitational waves do not exist. It is a struggle to return us not only before General Relativity; it is a program to return the humankind to the pre-Newtonian era and the dark Middle Ages. Some people may be permanently impressed by Mach's principle and some people may find it shallow after a closer scrutiny. These two groups may be composed of equally nice people. But the difference is that the critics of Mach's principle have a good physical intuition; its advocates are philosophers who are unable to think analytically and quantitatively and they prefer to insist on prejudices that can be shown flawed by a five-minute-long quantitative argument.

There are catelysts all around, that ask for this deeper resolve to come forth. Asking for greater potentials in our visionistic qualities, to understand, that we can see this world very much differently? What pathway had been established then that Lee Smoln would attack this from another perspective held within the ideas of Special Relativity, that holds the idealization before the roads to gravitational understanding had been theoretically proven by Einstein.

Lubos Said:>

OK, let me start with the questions about relationism and Mach's principle. I highly recommend you the second popular book by Brian Greene, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", where the relative vs. absolute debate is covered in the first chapters. And the presentation is very nice.

How often the debate on such levels of what seems has been lacking in string/M theory that such voices extolled would relinquish it to paths unexperimentally challenged? They would have missed the opportunity ofsuch a debate brought forth from the Dialogos of Eide.

It is a strong statement which arises from the Platonic school, that such a discussion would reveal, that what is in the Heaven of ideas, could descend to minds and those who ask, those who embroil themselves, to questions of what it is, that makes the ideas of reality, a part of the natural world.

Lee Smolin:

The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

Liminocentric Structures: Which Circle do you Belong Too?

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'.

As most know "Liminocentric structure" will have been defined here then? I like to think this goes back much further in our natures, and to recognize this pattern, much as Brian Greene might have spoken too, in article above one would have ot venture into it to understand.



Then why would I inject past historical views here to current research? It is a issue of wholeness and bringing resolution to the camps of LQG and Strings. If you look at the circle here in an expansitory view. The circle as a point, deals with particle reductionistic principals as well as dealing with General Relativity on a cosmological scale. They both deal with gravity from their respective positions. What are their strengths and weaknesses?

I will be away for about two weeks and a much needed break, so I hope people will explore this avenue, for it is the basis of my research in understanding this interchange between, depending on which circle you belong, two ends that need to come together and in this regard, LQG and String theory might have found this unification, but from which different ends?



There is no end, and it is continous by nature?

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points. That each theory involves loops-in string theory, these are string loops; in loop quantum grvaity, they're harder to describe nonmathmatically, but. roughly speaking, they'r elementray loops of space-suggests there might be a connection. This possibility is further supported by the fact that on a few problems accessible to both, sucha s blackhole entrophy, the two theroies agree fully. And on the question of spacetime's constittuents, both theories suggest that there is some kind of atomized structure. Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

To me this connection lies in how we interpret the circle and this variation in between them, is a powerful topological structure form that is understood as we see the question of which circle is which? From which space quantum mechanically to cosmologicazlly. In terms of that atomized look, to the nature of relativity through that cosmo.

The last departing statement in Brian Greene's book sets the stage for how the string community has to orientate its view from one perspective, while LQG needs to orientate theirs. This is used, to point to ISCAP and the introduction Brian Green gives us.

Look at Page 493 of his book, and then look here.

The goal of ISCAP is to bring together theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, and observational astronomers to address key problems in particle physics and cosmology that require a broad confluence of expertise and perspective.

Even the good intention would have failed to see this connection between both camps, but I see that having it explained as such here, I hope to point to something much deeper in our psyche that warrents the orientation to mathematcial structures that underlies our consciousness. As subjective a view as it might seem to some, there are reasons that I support such views, and without hurting the purity of the direct mathematical relations, I needed to bring the article and title of this entry forward for consideration. It is a necessary part of wholeness that the dicrete natures and the wonderful views of continuity would share some relationship even in the bulk of our considerations?

Which Circle do you belong too? You are one, and the same are you not?:)



"Nothing to me would be more poetic; no outcome would be more graceful ... than for us to confirm our theories of the ultramicroscopic makeup of spacetime and matter by turning our giant telescopes skyward and gazing at the stars," Greene said.


The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

Alice in Wonderland: A Real World Fantasy?

Before this post begins, it is important to understand that the expose of thoughts in regards to what myth created could have amounted to some journey of the photon understand that the chaotic feature of loose lips could sink ships, amounts to the amount specualtive feature we assign the models of our understanding. That yes, in the world of math and it's design, we would not want to confuse the issues. So let me say that such adventures could have been as easy as accepting A and B as letters of the aphlabet, and in this, Alice becomes, and so does Bob.

But in betweenst them, it seems that a outcome would have made many wonder about what transferance would have become relevant in the direction and explanation of a casual relationship, leading from one to to another? That was to some, "spooky in it's wonder," and hence some part of wonderland.

Heaven forbid, that such a thought could exist that here is Neverland and the roles of Fantasy gone wild in the mind of DR. Hook and Michael Jackson. Let us not be tainted anymore by such a ruse as to think the mind could embellsh itself and loose sight of the issues, but that we even immortalize without undertanding why. So in this respect the math as a basis should have remain untainted.

So now this post will be the end of such a fantsy and about the travels the photon takes in this wonderland, to have now moved to the interference patterns that bring wonder out on the other side.

So such revision given here will have now proceeded to the end, and the work that catches my mind in the early comsological events or it's interactive nature revealled in the relations between the earth and the sun.

Welcome to the Lewis Carroll Society of North America (LCSNA) home page. The LCSNA is a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering Carroll studies, increasing accessibility of research material, and maintaining public awareness of Carroll's contributions to society. We intend to use the internet as another avenue to accomplish these goals. If you are a Carrollian and would like to help in these endeavors, or if you simply enjoy Carroll and want to be among other people with a like interest, please consider joining the LCSNA.

Alice ventures into the mirror world.
Illustrations: John Tenniel, Alice in Wonderland

Welcome to the mirror world, in which every particle in the known universe could have a counterpart. This cosmos would hold mirror planets, mirror stars, and even mirror life.

It is always nice to have some music to back up the idea, that the standard model might have exemplified a greater course on "multipilicity of meanings", "yet we know well that Alice has to come out to a world on the otherside." These highlighted words in quote, can be used in lyric to the music above, if you like:)



Thomas Young would have been happy, that such a spectrum would have found, that the journies to this side, would have found some potential realization by introducing BOB?


Beyond the Yellow Brick Road

So here we have this complex view over top of a "mathematical idea" who sought to give perspective to the chaos of a world by casual statements of life? Ones we exchange on a normal storytelling day, to have found, something hidden deeper? Sneaky mathematicians they are and mythmakers they could be. Who would hav known such a gentle story, could have been adults pleasure in science?

Alice in Quantum Land--A Quantum's Eye View

Following is chapter to be published later this year in "Lewis Carroll's Lost Quantum Diaries," ed. William B Shanley.

“

“I'm a quantum,” the voice continued. “You've been hearing a lot about quantum physics and all the strange conclusions that it leads to in your world, so I thought it was time you heard from me, and got a picture of how the world looks from a quantum's point of view.

“As to where I am, I am everywhere and nowhere. Always and nowhen.”

Alice knew better than to let her mind be worried by paradox. Just about everything she had heard so far was paradoxical in some way or other, and trying to understand paradoxes was bound to lead to even greater confusion.

But let us not forget the real story and the words written for children's minds? How many versions can we induce into the way in which myths are created about the beginning of the world to wonder, had this been sought by explaining the strange world of the looking glass?

Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll Alice's adventures continue is this tale of fantasy and adventure. Carrolls stories entertain children but can also give pause to think to adults as well. So welcome back to Wonderland! Beware the Jabberwok!

Could "Chaos" have been Implied in the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator, as Supersymmetry?

See:Quantum Harmonic Oscillators


Fortunately being the junior here in knowledge comprehension, the benefits, as of my having wrongly thought a certain way, allows "fantasy a great journey." I have wondered, could I have ever attained such insights that would awaken even the most determined individual to the quest of, to finally rest easy and a warm satisfaction?

Let's hold the Trigger in suspension. What is it's potential, had such symmetrical realizations made the axis of this process move according to some plan not seen? Are There methods seen in the matrices, that revolve around this "i" that woud have given the photon dispersement some relevance to a interactive phase within context? How about gluon perceptions? Tipler's lightcones also comes to mind here, as such a process?

I am so afraid to trip on my tongue, that such words listed, would have provided the necessary crackpot label. I wondered whether I should continue. But a motivation is borne of it's own accord, I couldn't help see some relevance to the "uncertainty in langrange points."

Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

Could have exemplified such unequilibrium, that at first, it made no sense to me that such points could have ever accomplished anything. Was there a lesson from lorentz and his model butterfly that such models had found the transfer from one state to another, could reveal such supersymmetrical acts of consideration in having found the anti- anything, and soon learnt, that it was the other side of the equation? The 720 degree turn, that brought the history of this action into a complete whole, and accord.



I would like to say this is nice to see that Lee Smolin has taken the time to help set things straight. This caught my eye.

This is linked to a Post written by Peter Woit called, " Why No New "Einstein"?

Lee Smolin:

6) With regard to the non-standard quantization, in which holonomies, but not local field operators are well defined, it is of course true that when applied to standard systems this leads to inequivalent results. “This apparently leads to unphysical consequences, such as an unbounded spectrum for the harmonic oscillator.” But, give me a break, do you really think someone is proposing to replace the standard quantization of the harmonic oscillator with the alternative one? What is being proposed is that the quantization used in LQG is well suited to the quantization of diffeo invariant gauge theories.

In case it is not obvious, let me emphasize that harmonic oscillators are not relevent here, and can play no role in a background independent quantum theory, precisely because the division of a field into harmonic modes requires a fixed background metric. Thus, the physics of the problem REQUIRES an alternative quantization.

I have to read things over quite a few times before it seems to sink in, but reference to three sphere and the understanding of Poincare's model did not reduce my interest in seeing such correlations in how we saw such langrange points develope into this suspended state for the trigger to make itself known?

Many physicists find extra dimensions a distasteful notion. In remarks to an American Physical Society newsletter, physicist Frank Wilczek of MIT called the black hole study a sound way to test an unattractive idea.

"There's no question that the Auger observatory will be sensitive to this signal, if it exists," says Penn State's Stéphane Coutu, a member of the international Auger Observatory team. "We'll definitely look."

All of us are on the same wavelenght right? Blackhole determinations, set the stage, for what we hope to percieve is, "the basis of this trigger?"

How wonderful this rubber band that is slipped over the sphere, and as it expands from this point, "the loop" now becomes a exemplifier of all those things manifested from the spherical gaze of the harmonics?

What image is given from the blackhole to realize, that the gravitonic messager sent from the daisy of Taylor, would have found the penduluminaric thoughts in Greg's Egans's "animations of Lissajous" and a coordinated frame?

Mathematical Enlightenment

This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. 11

This plate image is a powerful one for me becuase it represents something Greene understood well. His link on the right hand side of this blog is the admission of "cosmological and quantum mechanical readiness," to tackle the cosmological frontier.

While it is has become evident that the perspective I share and the wonders of mathematcial endowment, this basis has pointed me in the direct relationship between, brain matter and mind? Mind and mathematics?

In the West we tend to think of 'enlightenment' itself as an exceptional mental state, outside of (or separate from) ordinary states. But in many of the spiritual traditions of the East, enlightenment is described as, in essence, a 'realization' 9 about the ultimate nature of the mind. Enlightenment is really nothing but the 'ordinary' state, as seen (and experienced) from a somewhat wider perspective, as it were. This is not unlike how the Newtonian frame which describes events in the material world at a HUMAN scale can be conceived as enclosed within a wider frame of explanation that is Einsteinian.


So is there some cosmological embodiment of brain matter, once it has realized the mathmatics, that it will issue from that brain has somehow traversed, all laws of nature and transcended itself away from the curent standards set for itself. Mind, is limited by the brain matter we have?


In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.

So imagine the eire I could raise when I say that string theory has transcended the current status of mathematics, "brain matter controlled." That any attemtps to side swipe this new emergent quality of mathematics (what is it that has materialized?)and now we see that what lies in the cosmo is not limiteed to cosmlogical endeavors of General Relativity alone, but the deepr significance and recognition of the reductionist views of those same matters around us?

Who is going to argue with this?

I have set the standards well, that brain matters and functions if stood by, have revealled that mathematics is embodied by the brain matter with which we are dealt?

Then how shall any new mathematics form and become the responsive road to recogniton of the physics we have endured by experimentation, to say, that new roads are now to be considered? Our brain status will not allow this, because the brain matter has not be readied for this new transcendance of thinkng. We are limited by the very matters with which we like to deal?

So if string theory is to be considered in context, of the way in which the brain deals, then how could transcendance and twenty first century thinking ever prepare society for this new transcendance and viability for change in the way humanity has always seen?

This is a torus (like a doughnut) on which several circles are located. Unlike on a Euclidean plane, on this surface it is impossible to determine which circle is inside of which, since if you go from the black circle to the blue, to the red, and to the grey, you can continuously come back to the initial black, and likewise if you go from the black to the grey, to the red, and to the blue, you can also come back to the black.

Reichenbach then invites us to consider a 3-dimensional case (spheres instead of circles).

Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)

One had to be able to maintain this positon between the inner and outer and a consistent feature of the brains ability to unite, the world outside, with the one inside?

Did we not see the ability of Time variable measures on the basis of how we see earth not mean, that we should place less significance to how Persinger asked the question, and ran contray to Lakoff and Damasio's views? One in which I postulate now too, as evidence of the transcendance needed to incoporate a much more palatable feature of the 21st century.

My evidence is, and although speaking to some ideal of enlightenment, has shown that such graduations needed to see the "Work of Iscap" as a fundmental progression of this new feature of the brain's compacity? This is part of it's evolution.

Oh, I have no views on intelligent design, so any comparisons seen, are coincidence.

The case for discrete energy levels of a black hole

Jacob Bekenstein

Download for Lecture

The Bekenstein Bound, Topological Quantum Field Theory and Pluralistic Quantum Field Theory

An approach to quantum gravity and cosmology is proposed based on a synthesis of four elements: 1) the Bekenstein bound and the related holographic hypothesis of 't Hooft and Susskind, 2) topological quantum field theory, 3) a new approach to the interpretational issues of quantum cosmology and 4) the loop representation formulation of non-perturbative quantum gravity. A set of postulates are described, which define a (\it pluralistic quantum cosmological theory.) These incorporates a statistical and relational approach to the interpretation problem, following proposals of Crane and Rovelli, in which there is a Hilbert space associated to each timelike boundary, dividing the universe into two parts. A quantum state of the universe is an assignment of a statistical state into each of these Hilbert spaces, subject to certain conditions of consistency which come from an analysis of the measurement problem. A proposal for a concrete realization of these postulates is described, which is based on certain results in the loop representation and topological quantum field theory, and in particular on the fact that spin networks and punctured surfaces appear in both contexts. The Capovilla-Dell-Jacobson solution of the constraints of quantum gravity are expressed quantum mechanically in the language of Chern-Simons theory, in a way that leads also to the satisfaction of the Bekenstein bound.

Brane New World

If some thought is beyond comprehensible to engage string theory and come away with some simple statement about it, imagine if we are taken to the new heights that Brane New World might implicate.

But first, having understood something about the matrix involved I tried to educate myself and look for the thread that would bring feynman to dirac for his toy model production.

P.A.M. Dirac was a gifted mathematical inventor who saw how quantum mechanics rises from classical mechanics, yet transcends it. Dirac did not know of the Bohr atom when he arrived at Cambridge in 1923; yet he quickly began contributing to the mathematical structure demanded by quantum phenomena, discovering the connection between the Poisson bracket and the commutator of Heisenberg”s matrix representation of observables. Then, with careful attention to its classical antecedent, Dirac found the equation governing the evolution of the matrix elements which had eluded Heisenberg in the operator ihdA/dt = [A,H]. He then went on to discover spinors in describing the relativistic electron and antimatter implied by the quantum in relativistic space-time. Dirac conceived the many-time formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics and laid the foundations of the Feynman path integral thereby opening the way to quantum electrodynamics. Newton synthesized the foundations of classical mechanics. In fitting kinship, Dirac, who did the equivalent for quantum mechanics, filled the chair at Cambridge held by Newton.

Well when I moved to the higher dimensions it became extremely difficult to understand that if in Brane New World antics as revealled by Dvali, these concepts are simply discussed, but have far reaching implications.

Dvali uses the analogy of a metallic sheet submerged in water to illustrate the principle. If one hits the sheet with a hammer, shock waves will carry away the energy in all directions. "Most of the energy will travel along the two-dimensional surface. Only at a substantial distance away from the source will the energy loss to water be appreciable," he said. "According to our picture, we are in a very similar situation. We think gravity is 'normal' because we only measure it directly at relatively short distances, but cosmic acceleration indicates leakage.

"

This simple visualization does more to ask, how we could look at what is being held to this brane, to understand that the way that vibration moves across his example, would have some correpsondance somewhwere else for consideration.

It is always easy to visualize the three coordinated universe as a box, and if using loop amplitudes within context of Greg" Egan's example, you are going to meet the faces that these loops reflect. This pointed to something beyond the faces of these coordinates for me, to realize, that beyond the four dimensinal views there was a world that we were missing in consideration. Those missing energy events speak to this, for me.

So the following picture I hope clarifies what I have been saying for sometime from a M Theory perspective.

Unfortunately the image I had on file is no longer connected to it's source so the site gone takes the image with it. This logic was part of the developement I see in the interenet that would reveal the source and not compromize it's auhtor's rights?

So of course I had to go look at how I would see Dvali's statements about the hammer heating the metal sheet.

The Microstates of Quantum Gravity

Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought

-Albert Einstein

Fig.1: Generally Grouping Order increases the density of objects within a frame of reference, resulting in a more pronounced single object.

To see beyond what we have taken for granted it is important that you understand how we got to the way we are?:) Above, the diagram helps you too orientate these views in accordance with established sciences.

A lot of times if you do not understand the direction the Microstates are taking us, then it would not make much sense in understanding the manifestation of one end of the spectrum, to solids things, to have explored the other end of the spectrum to the greater potential of dimensional perspectives?

John Baez:

Indeed, now that the Standard Model seems to be giving a spectacularly accurate description of all the forces *except* gravity, quantum gravity is one of the few really big mysteries left when it comes to working out the basic laws of physics --- or at least, one of the few *obvious* big mysteries. (As soon as one mystery starts becoming less mysterious, new mysteries tend to become more visible.) But back when particle physics was big business, only a few rather special sorts of people were seriously devoted to quantum gravity. These people seem to be often more than averagely interested in philosophy, often more interested in mathematics (which is one of the few solid handholds in this slippery subject), and always more resigned to the fact that Nature does not reveal all her secrets very readily

It is with great desire that anyone of us would like to find a discription and mode of thinking that would help establish a geometry that would arise from such states, that it becomes very diffiuclt to know if such standings in regards to Loop will directly explain how GR would have ever came to be, while strings has denoted our comprehension of the world the way it is, as being derived from some other state of existance. A Microstate one?

Quantum gravity is the field devoted to finding the microstructure of spacetime. Is space continuous? Does spacetime geometry make sense near the initial singularity? Deep inside a black hole? These are the sort of questions a theory of quantum gravity is expected to answer. The root of our search for the theory is a exploration of the quantum foundations of spacetime. At the very least, quantum gravity ought to describe physics on the smallest possible scales - expected to be 10-35 meters. (Easy to find with dimensional analysis: Build a quantity with the dimensions of length using the speed of light, Planck's constant, and Newton's constant.) Whether quantum gravity will yield a revolutionary shift in quantum theory, general relativity, or both remains to be seen

But let's remember something very important about such microstates and the geometry that Brian Greene is referring too. If you do not have this idea set in mind about how we are directed to those same microstates, what is at odds here between loop and strings for consideration?

This has to be identidified for lay people where such generalizations and comments from those who are trying to build our views, understand well, that they arrive from an idealization that might have had it's spokesperson stand for a extreme, or the other, all the while leaving lay people in the dust, while the sanctity of each area continuously is debated?

Such polarizations of views far two distint from each other is a statement that Smolin reminds us that his area is most defintiely trying as well to speak about qunatum gravity. But of course I must continue on froma statement from Greene here so that sch microstates and its geometry is understood. What is quantum geometry?

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

I am setting up for the next entry. In it I am trying to pierce the veil that is driving such polarizations into there respective veiws, in regard to LQG or Strings respectively. It is troubling indeed that I as a outsider have to look hard and long for why this has materialized? That of course I would like to instigate others to move forward in a most appropriate "dialogos to remember," what each is working on.

Can the mirror world explain the ortho-positronium lifetime puzzle? by R. Foota∗ and S. N. Gninenkob†

We suggest that the discrepant lifetime measurements of ortho-positronium can be explained by ortho-positronium oscillations into mirror ortho-positronium. This explanation can be tested in future vacuum experiments.

Quantum Geometry

Mathematics is not the rigid and rigidity-producing schema that the layman thinks it is; rather, in it we find ourselves at that meeting point of constraint and freedom that is the very essence of human nature.

- Hermann Weyl

I know I said I would post the discussion between Susskind and Smolin again for refreshing but I wanted to post the issue of Quantum Geometry first and then move there.

My area of research is superstring theory, a theory that purports to give us a quantum theory of gravity as well as a unified theory of all forces and all matter. As such, superstring theory has the potential to realize Einstein's long sought dream of a single, all encompassing, theory of the universe. One of the strangest features of superstring theory is that it requires the universe to have more than three spatial dimensions. Much of my research has focused on the physical implications and mathematical properties of these extra dimensions --- studies that collectively go under the heading "quantum geometry".

Quantum geometry differs in substantial ways from the classical geometry underlying general relativity. For instance, topology change (the ``tearing" of space) is a sensible feature of quantum geometry even though, from a classical perspective, it involves singularities. As another example, two different classical spacetime geometries can give rise to identical physical implications, again at odds with conclusions based on classical general relativity.

If one did not understand where this geometry will begin, then it does not make much sense for a person to consider the mathematics that will arise from this situation?

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232

"But now, almost a century after Einstein's tour-de-force, string theory gives us a quantum-mechanical discription of gravity that, by necessity, modifies general relativity when distances involved become as short as the Planck length. Since Reinmannian geometry is the mathetical core of genral relativity, this means that it too must be modified in order to reflect faithfully the new short distance physics of string theory. Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

So I have shown I thnk the importance of the math involved and how it might address the quantum nature of the world in small things. We find, we can be quite comfortable in looking at the achievemets of Einstein, in leading us to a good perception about things on a cosmological scale. But moving back to the "quantum geometry," what are we describing here?

Quantum gravity is perhaps the most important open problem in fundamental physics. It is the problem of merging quantum mechanics and general relativity, the two great conceptual revolutions in the physics of the twentieth century. The loop and spinfoam approach, presented in this book, is one of the leading research programs in the field. The first part of the book discusses the reformulation of the basis of classical and quantum Hamiltonian physics required by general relativity. The second part covers the basic technical research directions. Appendices include a detailed history of the subject of quantum gravity, hard-to-find mathematical material, and a discussion of some philosophical issues raised by the subject. This fascinating text is ideal for graduate students entering the field, as well as researchers already working in quantum gravity. It will also appeal to philosophers and other scholars interested in the nature of space and time.

The same vigor with which string theory/M theory is attack for is fundamental points about the nature of the geometric world is no less important then what achivements and attempts are made by Rovelli. Each aspect of the societal influence theoretists and physics people engage in, is part and parcel of the individuals who are, hands on with the Elephant.


Edward Witten

Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

No Royal Road to Geometry?

All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

It was interesting to me that I find some thread that has survived through the many centuries , that moves through the hands of individuals, to bring us to a interesting abstract world that few would recognize.



While Euclid is not known to have made any original discoveries, and the Elements is based on the work of his predecessors, it is assumed that some of the proofs are his own and that he is responsible for the excellent arrangement. Over a thousand editions of the work have been published since the first printed version of 1482. Euclid's other works include Data, On Divisions of Figures, Phaenomena, Optics, Surface Loci, Porisms, Conics, Book of Fallacies, and Elements of Music. Only the first four of these survive.

Of interest, is that some line of departure from the classical defintions, would have followed some road of developement, that I needed to understand how this progression became apparent. For now such links helped to stabilize this process and the essence of the departure form this classical defintion needed a culmination reached in Einstein's General Relativity. But long before this road was capture in it's essence, the predecessors in this projective road, develope conceptual realizations and moved from some point. To me, this is the fifth postulate. But before I draw attention there I wanted to show the index of this same projective geometry.

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.

The move from the fifth postulate had Girolamo Saccheri, S.J. (1667 - 1733) ask the question?

What if the sum of the angles of a triangle were not equal to 180 degrees (or p radians)?" Suppose the sum of these angles was greater than or less than p. What would happen to the geometry we have come to depend on for so many things? What would happen to our buildings? to our technology? to our countries' boundaries?

The progression through these geometries leads to global perspectives that are not limited to the thread that moves through these cultures and civilizations. The evolution dictates that having reached Einstein GR that we understand that the world we meet is a dynamical one and with Reason, we come t recognize the Self Evident Truths.

At this point, having moved through the geometrical phases and recognitions, the physics of understanding have intertwined mathematical realms associated with Strings and loop and other means, in which to interpret that dynamical world called the Planck Length(Quantum Gravity).

Reichenbach on Helmholtz