How Particles Came to be?

The First Few Microseconds, by Michael Riordan and Willaim A. Zajc

For the past five years, hundreds of scientists have been using a powerful new atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island to mimic conditions that existed at the birth of the universe. Called the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC, pronounced "rick"), it clashes two opposing beams of gold nuclei traveling at nearly the speed of light. The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.
During those early moments, matter was an ultrahot, superdense brew of particles called quarks and gluons rushing hither and thither and crashing willy-nilly into one another. A sprinkling of electrons, photons and other light elementary particles seasoned the soup. This mixture had a temperature in the trillions of degrees, more than 100,000 times hotter than the sun's core.

What was the initial energy that distributed the particle natures to have "microstate blackholes" created, while the conditions for other experiments are considered?

There are some things we need to know and I will show this shortly. I know certain people believe I am "ad hocing," but how would you get to the source of the thoughts, if one did not consider the conditions in which thought forms were created? So while we lok at the high energy collision of cosmic particles what are some of the things to watch for?

Forbush Decrease

Scott E. Forbush discovered the surprising inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays

How would you not know, while the timeline has been explained, and a place for such expression would reveal such conditions to have them displayed, that we could think of them from such a beginning?

Where is that? Maybe you had to know about RHIC to understand the full notion of such a superfluids created, to know that such a condition became counter-intutive because of the new physics that it could present?




What is dissapated and how did it get there as other particle conditions are realized? Remember, the initial energy of such a expression was in a more simplified state, before it became as complex as it did in entropic realizations.

New state of matter more remarkable than predicted -- raising many new questions

The four detector groups conducting research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) -- a giant atom “smasher” located at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory -- say they’ve created a new state of hot, dense matter out of the quarks and gluons that are the basic particles of atomic nuclei, but it is a state quite different and even more remarkable than had been predicted. In peer-reviewed papers summarizing the first three years of RHIC findings, the scientists say that instead of behaving like a gas of free quarks and gluons, as was expected, the matter created in RHIC’s heavy ion collisions appears to be more like a liquid.

“Once again, the physics research sponsored by the Department of Energy is producing historic results,” said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, a trained chemical engineer. “The DOE is the principal federal funder of basic research in the physical sciences, including nuclear and high-energy physics. With today’s announcement we see that investment paying off.”

As a product of mind could it be reborn, or burn up, and we are only discussing the philosophical considerations. Phenix, or was that Phoenix, like the bird? Rising from the flames and a renewal, as part of the creation of new conditions?

Scientists May Soon Have Evidence for Exotic Predictions of String Theoryissued by Northeaster University

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

The Z Machine

There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.— Nikolai Lobachevsky

Sandia’s Z machine exceeds two billion degrees Kelvin

Z’s energies in these experiments raised several questions.

First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input.

Ordinarily, in non-nuclear reactions, output energies are less — not greater — than the total input energies. More energy had to be getting in to balance the books, but from where could it come?

Lubos Motl

Janice Granhardt has pointed out a press release that is two days old and arguably much more serious and potentially far-reaching than the news about "sonofusion" we described yesterday.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-billion-kelvins-at-z-machine.html

I reference current article information that I had been working through here and here for obvious reasons. I would like to expand on this.

I am writng this article because of the references Lubos Motl offered on his blog about the need for, "energy production." The whole context of any model has to have understood that the current situation in gravitational perspective will have it's two extremes (weak and strong) held in thought, and ending within this context? A cyclical process maybe like thinking about Steinhardt maybe? :)

I know the idea of free energy machines is a quacks realm, if, the imput energy and output energy is not held in consideration. That a greater output must be sustained. How?

Klein's Ordering of 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.


So on what conditions, could you map the process consistently and geometrics, to have been all inclusive?

While one may discuss these alternatives, it might require that we see this process at work on a cosmological scale, and having reduced it to the quantum realm, the questions about the geometries, becomes held under the auspice of "new physics,". That we might ask, "what new geometries?"

The natural process then would have to acknowledge the need for many microstate blackholes to have further the context of the standard model and it's extension?

Is this not a fair statement? Even though we may talk about one event, the recogition is that, this happens many times in regards to high energy articles in a collidial region. This had been answered in Risk assessment, as to why the process developed naturally, in the production of microstate blackholes, we might have created in LHC.

This did not discount, the understanding of what "extra dimensions meant" when we were understanding the "new physics." Reference here, neutrino or strangelets. It was just part and parcel of a greater understanding that John Ellis had pointed us too, is our recognition of the poor man's accelerator.

See:

The Unity of Mathematics

Have we seen (strange) quark matter?

Well the very idea that such a thing could exist, has been part of the evolving information I had been going through. To be lead to the understanding, of what new Physics would emerge fromm cosmological and collidial events. That there are indeed showers of particles with which such events will let us know cannot be ignored.

First Principle needed to recognize "the very state" that things would arise from. For Robert Laughlin, a condense matter theorist, it didn't mater what you called these building blocks, but any discrete measure had to be recognized it's energy value and tragectories would it not? Hence, the particle shower from a known state of existance, where "first principle" would emerged.

So, any attempt to ignore the possibility of what emerges, and the foundational perspective, put forth in theory, has to help the understandng of what happens when such events do happen, either, micro perspectively or cosmologically.

Any attempts to say that the standard model is not inclusive in this design, would be detrimental to the very statement any mathematican would say against, that simply erasing any connection, would have been futile to their creditbility?

Strange Quark Matter TheoryTamas S. Biro

Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be the theoretical summary talk of the Strange Quark Matter 2003 conference. When I was alerted by the e-mail we all got, “prepare your transparencies”, I took this home-work exercise seriously. I have prepared quite a few pages before this conference. What can one know in advance, before listening to the talks?.

First of all there is a general outline which a summary talk should follow. On the level of the basic theory one is supposed to conclude about the present status of the underlying theoretical concepts, one ought to emphasize important news, the novel aspects we are encountering, and finally it is useful to formulate in a possibly definite way, what our perspectives for further development are.

So given the research that I had been going through, what is this strangelet subject that was developed, and I will post links that support the development of the fear with which such a thing arose. Was answered, by cosmological and collidial production of microstate blackhole events. Might the story and television series of blackholes been interrupted by such a dialogue, or had I furthered the plot for public consumption? To continue the fear?

Would your scientist/mathematican friend tell you about such things and ways in which to expect information from experimental designs, as not leading into the desire of the essence of new physics?

What began this assumption, was the idea that microstate blackholes were something of a danger, if we were to created them. That was the nightmare. The reality is, that this theoretically written state, is quite useful in terms of what can emerge from the idea of new physics, and had to include the standard model.

To get to new physics you had to have the standard model as a basis, and to move from that point, any resulting shower and new information, like in ICECUBE, along with the historiy and research of neutrinos, points to what? Strangelets to what?

Peter Woit dissassociated himself from that possibility, and if strings was to underly this view, what says, such advancements had not adhered to the demands of theoretcial proposition, that it now sees itself, as part and parcel of the planning for what else will emerge? Sees itself immersed in tachyon demonstration as a sign of cerenkov radiation as that blue light?

So indeed I struggle with how such theorectical position might have told me what is going on, and this issue, is not to be ignored as long as it is remianing consistant with the developement from standard model presumptions.

Paul first, and then I had been wondering about this issue right back in the beginning as it came to our attention. Steinberg and clarifications on what the microstate balckhole is was important, as it demonstrates the basis of work being done taking the energies and collidial events, to a new level of reductionistic perception. The microstate blackhole is the basis as far as I can tell.

Now given the state of Quark Gluon Plasma, what happens when you see such things hhappeniing that you have to aassume a new theoretcial position like M theory that such D Brane assumptions talk abut the viscosity nature? What are the poperties that have emerged from the idea of the blackhole, as this new state of matter tells us something about superfluids and such?

Does Peter understand these new developments? Does his own theoretical position from model assumption he also used, have correlates to current day information and research? It had been my hope, that his position would have created the dialogue necessary. I have enjoyed the mathematical adventures he has shown has developed further my perspective as shown, in the very last link below.

In order to have the perspective and vision of the abstract world of the mathematics shown, you needed to know some things. They had to be couched in the history of all that we have learnt, and any modification in mathematical language, alters that perspective, if it relates to the very work you are doing on extending the standard model?

See:

Quark Gluon Plasma II

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

Strangelets in Cosmic Consideration

Cosmic Rays Collsions ad Strangelets Produced

Quark Stars

Accretion Disks

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and ICECUBE

All Particle of te Standard Model and Beyond

Ideas on Quantum Interrogation

We have chosen here to prepare a triplet of entangled particles of the GHZ type. The entanglement has been demonstrated by experiments performed in two orthogonal basis. The procedure can, in principle, operate on larger numbers of particles, opening the way to new fundamental tests of quantum theory.

So I am deep in thought, and the images of the neuron's capabilties, have me picturing the possibilties that could have been produced in the synapse. That the quantum computer would have said that it is directlty and photonically, linked to a wide range of possibilities in the developing ideas of the cosmo?

Okay, if that is too much, then think of Trackbacks, pictures with direct links, or paragraphs, directly linked to sites. This is what we want to create as a versatile function on the internet? Whie images are sparked in mind, where did they arise from, or some profound thought held in perspective of the Rainbow by Feynman, about what is beautiful about the work these physicists like to do. Their motivations spectrumly enhanced, about what it is about the nature of reality?



But it is more then this I think. Imagine using a feather to rotate a sphere, and the effect of the superfluid, to produce these strange anomalies of perception on superfluids. Okay, I am loosing myself here.

Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial intelligence such as Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model perception and used in newly designed "smart" cameras. Where standard logic must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to support our theories?

Part of the struggle for me is, how we see, ingoing and out going states, and the possibilities that may arise? How in computation ideology, might raise it's head, as a third choice.

Now I am not certain here, and I open myself up to speculation, because I would like to see how such states, like those leading to "microstate blackholes" which would see the dissipation, resulted in the ability of all those particles to be mapped. In such a way, that the "onion skin or glast," interacts calorimetrized, colliderized, and with, cosmological high energy particles have by it's very act said, the result is, that the early universe, is this way, and the interacting measure, is the result of today? What is this product then?

It might have amounted to a "variation" of the cosmological constant? :)

On the other hand you need to be aware of the maybe most bizarre aspect of quantum mechanics: the fact that our world is only apparently tridimensional, in reality it is formed from two tridimensional worlds that we see superimposed onto each other: everywhere we think we see one point in fact there are two points. An elementary particle (such as an electron) when it rotates around its axis is passes from one part of the world into the other part, as if it would climb on a spiral; when it rotates furthermore it goes back as if the spiral would descend back into the first part of world.

See:

Entanglement and the New Physics

IN Viscosity State Production is ?

Dual Nature From Microstate Blackhole Creation?

When a neutrino collides with a water molecule deep in Antarctica’s ice, the particle it produces radiates a blue light called Cerenkov radiation, which IceCube will detect (Steve Yunck/NSF)

Plato:

So, only from a high energy consideration "viscosity" (D brane examples), can hold microstate perspective, on blackholes superfluid state? To "provide evidence for" distortions in neutrino creations?

Credit: NSF
“

The neutrinos accelerated in the cosmos to energies unattainable on Earth can detect the ‘footprint’ of new physics,” said Goldberg. “The ‘body’ responsible for the footprint can then emerge through complementary experiments at the new generation of human-made colliders. On all fronts, it is an exciting era in high-energy physics.

”

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCube

...the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

Albert Einstein

Sometimes if we paid attention enough, the neurons seem to fire appropriately and the detachment of the ideas seemingly distant from one another, become illuminated and connected? Imagine it taking place in Clifford's other office.

Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.

The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

Such a cognitive fucntion then would be important as these math symbols arose in our minds. Possible new mathematical models in which to describe the nature we see around us. So one makes sure they have a pad and pencil, while they ventured away from the regime, with which the mind has been so intensely engaged?

Now being so far from the understanding of these mathematics, I can only hope to understand the concepts as they unfold in a geometrical insight, while I try to make sure I understand them in relation to abstract thinking.

SNO on the go – at last!

Over the past 30 years, five different experiments have sought to measure the flux of these elusive particles from the Sun (produced by the same nuclear processes that make it shine) and have consistently come up short of theoretical predictions. One explanation is that the neutrinos emitted ‘oscillate’ into another variety of neutrino which past experiments could not detect.

Within the IceCube collaboration the Univ. of Uppsala and the Univ. of Berkeley have joined the DESY initiative. The DESY team is also in close contact to the groups in Europe, the USA and Asia which are working on acoustic detectors for Neutrino-Telescopes installed in water. Details on the different projects have been presented on the First Workshop on Acoustic Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Detection held at Stanford in September 2003.

The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).

Some understanding of the dual nature of blackholes is needed here in order to understand what is "produced" and how this is "spread out."

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

Before engaging article below it is important that the differences be noted between strangelets(strange quarks), and the distortions in neutrino properties. If it is understood the microstate blackholes are created, then the dispersion of other particle in the atmosphere give us indications and consequences gained from dual nature of the blackhole.

I am confused here, and this point of interactive consideration is holding my mind as to why both these situations together are important. The difficulty may come from from the immediate association, while reocgnition of these two have been raised from the event and collision.

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

Strangelets - sometimes also called strange-quark nuggets - are predicted to have many unusual properties, including a density about ten million million times greater than lead. Just a single pollen-size fragment is believed to weigh several tons.

They are thought to be extremely stable, travelling through the galaxy at speeds of about a million miles per hour. Until now, all attempts to detect them have failed. A team of American scientists believes, however, that it may have found the first hard evidence for the existence of strangelets, after scouring earthquake records for signs of their impact with Earth.

See:

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Cosmic Rays Collisions and Strangelets Produced?

I like to think of Enlightenment in another way Jaffe:)

While we had focused our attention on the airs about the earth, how would it been possible for us earthlings to push back the limitations on on our views that we could have seen cosmological data in context of all that we do in the environment?

See QuarkStars on this.

The collisions are strange: PHENIX can identify particles that contain strange quarks, which are interesting since strange quarks are not present in the original nuclei so they all must be produced. It is expected that a Quark-Gluon Plasma will produce a large amount of strange quarks. In particular, PHENIX has measured lambda particles. There are more lambda particles seen than expected.

I thought I would go over existing post I made in April of 2005 (se revised version below)and correct some of the links that would be more appropriate to information released in the Blogs of Reference Frame, Cosmic Variance and Not Even Wrong's site about "Amanda and ICECUBE."

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

These characteristics of superfluids are very interesting things to consider, as well as what is prodcuerd in "this action" as we are taken to the supefluid created. Think indeed, that this blackhole "is" the superfluid, and the strangelets, what are these? These never existed, until the superfluid was created?

But in the 10 dimensions of string theory, the fluid of a black hole isn't like other fluids. Space-time is considered to be flat in our perception, Son said, and five of the extra dimensions are compacted into a small, finite sphere. In the remaining dimension, however, space is curved. Evaporation doesn't occur in this dimension, he said, because as particles radiate from the fluid they strike the curved edge of the dimension and are sent bouncing back into the black hole.

These links help set up the thinking for information outside of LHC, that was given for perspective back earlier by John Ellis. The leading perspective on Microstate blackhole production was given then as well in the post with Quark Gluon perspectives, about strangelets produced.

While I had thought these relevant to Dark energy creation in our Cosmo, I did not point directly to the nature of these strangelets gathering at the center of our planet. You had to follow all these posts in order to understand the effect of microstate production, not only in RHIC or LHC, but in the cosmic perspective gained from Pierre Auger experiments as well.

I gave early history consideration so that you might understand a early concern of what mankind might have garnered in thinking, when in actuallity, this was happening naturally every time the cosmic rays penetrated the airs around the earth.

You might well see now that these considerations have been logically followed and there has not been much help as I had been laying the ground work for how perspective is garnered about gravitational considerations. These though are quickly dissipating blackholes created in the airs, around this planet.

Cosmic rays are nuclei and elementary particles always falling very fast on the earth from the universe. Enormous number of cosmic rays are always passing through our bodies. Cosmic rays was discovered by Victor Hess, who is an Austrian physicist, on 1912. He went up to the high altitude of 4000 meters by a balloon and found the ionization rate of the atmosphere is raised at the higher altitude by cosmic rays. After that, cosmic rays have been studied extensively and progressively, and mysteries in the Universe and the Nature are being revealed.

Cosmic rays come from the neighborhood of the Earth and also far galaxies. Galactic and extra galactic cosmic rays are considered to be accelerated at dynamical astronomical objects, such as supernova remnants, neutron stars,and active galactic nuclei. After far-reaching long traveling, they plunge into the atmosphere and bring about nuclear interactions with nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen in the air. The extraterrestrial cosmic rays which come from outside the earth are conventionally called primary cosmic rays, and newly produced particles via the nuclear interactions are called secondary cosmic rays. The main components of the secondary cosmic rays are muon, neutrino, electron, gamma ray, and neutron. While electrons and gamma rays are absorbed into the air, muons and neutrinos can be observed even under the ground.

Of course, this could all be speculation and misconceptions garnered in wrong thinking. So I'll leave it to the experts to correct the disemmination that would affront theoretical positions and hopefully I'll see such corrections. :)

Update: Bloggery updating does not seem to be working, so I will recreate the post here for examination.

4/16/2005

Cosmic ray experiments must overcome tremendous obstacles. The flux of particles above 10¹⁹ eV is extremely low (about 0.5 km-2yr-1sr-1), so detectors need to probe a large effective area to detect sufficient flux. This requires earthbound observatories. Consequently, the high energy particle is detected indirectly, as cosmic ray primaries entering the Earth's atmosphere interact with atmospheric nuclei to produce large cascades of relativistic secondary particles known as extensive air showers.

It somehow seems appropriate, that having been given some hint fom John Ellis of his research and interests, that the historical record could some how be brought into view. The appearnce of these references enhance later log entries on this site. A sort of moving backwards to get to the esence of what has happened in astrophysics and the journey tounderstand the nergies involved that speak to the idea of particle shower creation that had been consistent with reductionistics view we have gone through in the research of string theory.

The highest energy particle ever observed was detected by the Fly's Eye in 1991. With an energy of 3.5 x 10²⁰eV (or 56J), the particle, probably a proton or a light nucleus, had 108 times more energy than particles produced in the largest earth-bound accelerators. The origin of the particle is unknown. At such a high energy, and with its assumed charge, the path of this particle through the cosmos would have been relatively unaffected by galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. Yet no plausible astrophysical source is known along the arrival direction, within the maximum possible source distance imposed by collisions with photons of the cosmic microwave background. This event remains a mystery! It is clear that it existed, but there is no obvious explanation for its source.

These are some of the links that follow the early hisotry of our observations, so that we underrstand well that such cosmic rays are still viable arena for the understanding of these interactions. Sean Carroll may create the April's fool joke on mass migration from particle reductionistionism to astrophycics, but the truth is what is learnt is very applicable to both arenas and what had been learnt, can never be forgotten as we move our observations to the FLY'EYE

Collision Course Creates Microscopic "Blackholes"

Pierre Auger Observatory

Cosmological and Microstate Blackholes

Early history developement is sometimes important to understand the trends that intermingle began in branches of High Energy Particle Research and Cosmic particle research. We understood well the limitation that we would run into for the size of the coliders necessary for such observations that having understod the limits reached in this regard we see where one branch will push us to consider the world around us and the inertactions developing towards the understanding of thes ecosmic showers that we are experiencing.


Extremely energetic cosmic rays interact with the cosmic background photons via pair creation and photopion production and lose their energies during their trip. Therefore there is upper limit of distances which they can propagete in the space with a given energy. The above figure shows this limit (so called attenuation length) in case of cosmic ray protons. You see the 2x10^20 eV particles cannot propagate longer than 30 Mpc (100 million light years), which sets the limit concerning the location of possible sources.


Other Information Shamelessly Boorrowed:

Search for Diffuse Cosmic Gamma Rays above 200 TeV
Cassiday, G.L. et al.1991, Ap.J., 375,202.

A Search for Evidence of Point Sources in the Cherenkov Flash Data From Fly's Eye II
Elbert, J.W. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,265.

Search for Point Sources of U.H.E. Gamma Rays Using the Utah Cherenkov Array
Corbato, S.C. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,281.

The High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires): Parameters and Motivation
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,688.

Description and Status of the High Resolution (Hires) Fly's Eye Experiment
Au, W. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,692.

Observations of Real and Simulated Showers Using the First Two High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires) Mirrors
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,696.

Study of Extensive Air Showers (EAS) Detected with the Fly's Eye and the UMC Air Shower Array
Green, K.D. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,347.

Shower Simulations for the Fly's Eye
Gaisser, T.K. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,413.

Limits on Deeply Penetrating Particles from the Fly's Eye Detector
Cooper, R. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,623.

Charlatan's Who Use Graviton?

Are Gravity people Charlatan's?:)I certainly don't think so.:)



well this is a good perspective with which one could move forward and explain it for us lay people here? :)

Lubos Motl:

The graviton is, on the contrary, an example of a correct derivation from semiclassical gravity - a legitimate approximate unification of GR and QM. Its existence follows from the theories we have, even given some degree of ignorance of quantum gravity at higher energies, and at the semiclassical level, it is absolutely analogous to the photon.

The only difference is the value of the spin, the geometric interpretation of the graviton, and ultraviolet divergences from loops.

I might have had wrong ideas here about what the graviton as a force carrier "proposed?" To exemplified what gravity is...as a further extension of the theory of general relativity? Lubos sets it straight then on such joinings.

This is the crucial difference between the dark energy and modified gravity hypothesis, since, by the former, no observable deviation is predicted at short distances," Dvali says. "Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects, and the leakage opens up a huge number of multidimensional detours, which bring about a change in the law of gravity."

Dvali adds that the impact of modified gravity is able to be tested by experiments other than the large distance cosmological observations. One example is the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment that monitors the lunar orbit with an extraordinary precision by shooting the lasers to the moon and detecting the reflected beam. The beam is reflected by retro-reflecting mirrors originally placed on the lunar surface by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission.

I myself might find it nice to have the origins of how this graviton came about. How one might be mistaken to have seen the bulk as a teaming with them(blackholes?), and such congregations telling, about places stronger then, while others are weaker.

How telling is the photon as it travels through these spaces? What was the initial trigger that set things free as Hawking radiation? Some analogies there to consider as well:)

So it would be nice then if one could find analogies that would sit well and sink deep. You know that the general public likes to think easy, and not finding relevant all the dressings of mathematical explanations. Or do they?

Is it wrong to move so far ahead theoretically to be called a charlatan, by those who recognized the limitiations of experimentally proving it?

Laying the Foundation with Respect

It is most certain that at this point the public would have been left behind, so is there a way to bring perspective at this point on where you are now?

I recognize the generalization and roads that lead to blackhole as a basis for considerations. What would draw ones atyemtion to this horizon. Lee Smolin in his book gave adequate discription that I just pointed out here.

Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin, pg 171


I know it might seem that if this conversation is now highlighting the intricacies of blackhole dynamics, then what exactly are you doing?



By giving a visual map of the Bekenstein Bound this help to direct my attention to the mapping that had been going on theorectically here.

Mine would definitiely be generalizations, but work by others lead to deeper insights.

Conformal Field Theory

A conformal field theory is a quantum field theory (or statistical mechanics model at the critical point) that is invariant under the conformal group. Conformal field theory is most often studied in two dimensions where there is a large group of local conformal transformations coming from holomorphic functions.

So what "tidbits" had already been out there then that would help.


Black Holes and Beyond:
Harvard's Andrew Strominger on String Theory

Quantum Micostates?

The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

While this is a past issue for most of you it is leading in the direction you are talking I assume.


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 the 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

Gary T. Horowitz and Juan Maldacena,

The purpose of this note is to provide a possible answer to this question. Rather than the radical modification of quantum mechanics required for pure states to evolve into mixed states, we adopt a more mild modification. We propose that at the black hole singularity one needs to impose a unique final state boundary condition. More precisely, we have a unique final wavefunction for the interior of the black hole. Modifications of quantum mechanics where one imposes final state boundary conditions were considered in [6,7,8,9]. Here we are putting a final state boundary condition on part of the system, the interior of the black hole. This final boundary condition makes sure that no information is “absorbed” by the singularity.

While there is no "apparent relationship(?)" between microstate blackhole production and blackholes what would make one think that particle collsions can be written as dual blackholes?

Main Stream Breakthrough on Cosmic Variance

linked in title of article of same name, by Sean Carroll

A Randall/Sundrum view of the cosmos

The trick in this picture supplied by Sean is to look at the ideas of gravitonic concentrations, as these would be leading to the range from weak field manifestation to high energy strong concentrations. Such a variance is the over riding validation to me of how all this comes together.

From a historical perspective wasn't Steinhart and Turok already dealing with this perspective in his demonstration of colliding branes?

There are certain assumptions made here as well, and this is the question that probably haunts me most, that if the universe was cyclical in it's nature(so it doesn't need to be explained in M theory?), then there had to be "something always existing" from which to have this enduring cycle of birth and death ever connected? Where did your brane come from? Where did your bulk come from?

Now Steinhardt and Turok say that - according to 'M-theory' - the universe need not pass through a singularity between a big crunch and a big bang. Supported by most cosmologists, M-theory says that space-time has eleven dimensions, of which we perceive four: three in space and one in time. Our four-dimensional 'brane' - short for membrane - is moving among the remaining dimensions or branes, which are hidden at very small or very large length scales.

This might contradict the idea of "microstate blackholes" as ever being useful in our determinations of the source of expression, from the "idea" of brane theory collisions?

If one was to think outside the box, the outside of the box would have to be included in the inside? :) Greene gives a fitting statement for this although he does not do it in relation to the box, but in direct relation to "the circle".

I give this a philosophical term in relation, as a "Liminocentric structure", yet it seems fitting to have a inductive/deductive features in this "toposense" as relevant. You know, the universe in the "mind of human kind and human kind in the universe."

Strings and No_Sense?

Well for me, if theorists have mathematically created a vision of things, how is it possible not to have generalized their views on what they had learnt about the theories they talk about?

"Shut up and Calculate" would definitely appeal to a lot math minded there at the forefront of Cosmic Variance. But really, how are you going to distance yourself from such generalizations? It seeps out of your pores :)

So, no_sense could capture it? Now, Now, if this were the case then such analogies would not have been shared by the more briiliant. Non? Thank you, Michio Kaku.

As to "first principle," what are these building blocks called that make up the reality we so cherish. Robert Laughlin has something to say about this, and I am sure condense matter physicists would also say, it don't matter, if you use bricks or sergeant majors.

You arrive at some "point of view" where all agree that the Physicist's walking across the room, will have in tow, their students? Okay a bad comparison, but all branches form a wonderful view of the insurgency theorists attack, using a method to recognition of that "emergent property" will speak too, and so kindly of.

So we are to the point of the model? Bring it on, Clifford. Do you really want me to sumarize this point?

I can but it would take time and I would have to explain why high energy valutions had run into limitations. Now if it had been a experiemental setup that one could incorporate in space, and we do, don't get me wrong here. John Ellis helped to make this clear in our recognition of the Pierre Auger experiments and Steinberg's recognition of microstate blackholes that would quickly dissipate.

But in a tighter control recognition of particle reductionism, a " extra enormous energy valution" is inherently needed? NOn? They progressively/reductionistically move to this point, through the trial and errors, of their ways.

Ah heck! Clifford, I got ahead of myself here. So I'll think I'll stop, so you can fill us in from a more expert opinion.

What are those Quantum Microstates

Now two points occupy my mind that hold questions as to what and how such counting can be done in terms of geometric propensity, that would allow these geometries into topological states. First point is:

Lubos Motl said:

We need to get closer to the "theory of everything", regardless of the question whether the destination is a finite or infinite distance away. (And yes, the path should not be infinitely long because there is no physics "below" the Planck length.)

And the second:

Black holes and branes in string theory

But it has been discovered through string duality relations that spacetime geometry is not a fundamental concept in string theory, and at small distance scales or when the forces are very strong, there is an alternate description of the same physical system that appears to be very different.

So what then would say that non linear approaches would now have taken form in our talks, that what was once geoemtrically feasible, had been taken down to the length where no new geometry is involved. So lets see then how shall we verbalize what happens at the horizon, in terms of radiation, that such states never existed to make this possible?

Now there are always reasons that one moves into the historical to gain perspective. By doing this, you gain insight and advance thinking to reveal theoretical developement, and where it has taken us. So by using thse linked paragraph statements, we are revealling something about Blackholes that had been culminative, to have discussions in todays world. Like BPS blackhole dynamics.

Andrew Strominger is an American theoretical physicist who works on string theory. He is currently a professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Society of Fellows. His contributions to physics include:

Now one thing that troubles me about Lubo's statement, is the idea that supersymmetry valuation could ever be entertained, had we not consideedr this avenue of some importance. Not just in terms of symmetry breaking, but of the illustrous states of existance, that would exemply this idea where the superfluid could rest itself, and provide for the base of operation for these new universes?

To the second point, by providing for the idea of a geometry to emerge from this vast ocean of vast probabilites. Again for me, to see this I recognized that "space is not empty", and that such a congregation of gravitonic perception would have to be culminative, in some form for such a superfluid to exist?

So one had to get there geometrically from this ten dimensional perspective to have some basis to fuel developement into other stages of existance. Some geometric form, that would reduce, such valuations to supersymmetrical thinking and allow such a developemental process to cyclical natures. of that same universe.

Strominger: That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.

The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.

So indeed then three conditions had been satisfied, that issues about the physics involved had something to say about quantum mechanics, gravity and computation of entrophy of blackholes respectively.

The animation shows schematically the behavior of the gas molecules in the presence of a gravitational field. We can see in this figure that the concentration of molecules at the bottom of the vessel is higher than the one at the top of the vessel, and that the molecules being pushed upwards fall again under the action of the gravitational field.

What is black hole entropy?

Suppose we have a box filled with gas of some type of molecule called M. The temperature of that gas in that box tells us the average kinetic energy of those vibrating molecules of gas. Each molecule as a quantum particle has quantized energy states, and if we understand the quantum theory of those molecules, theorists can count up the available quantum microstates of those molecules and get some number. The entropy is the logarithm of that number.
When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.

Microstate Blackhole Production

Peter Steinberg

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

Big Horn Medicine Wheel

I'll put a picture here from my trip(it is taken from the board located at the site). It's the Bighorn Medicine Wheel located by Sheridan Wyoming. It is about 9642 feet up and on Medicine Mountain. The walk was about a mile and half in and was about a 100 degrees that day.

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'.

So these artifacts of culture and methods of model intepretation, can be one of many that finds interesting features, as a expansitory universe? At the same time such model enhances the internal developement. No wonder the Klein bottle attracts the eye, or a mobius strip. And let's not be sheepish here, the Taoist symbol? IMagine indeed one could suffer the wrath of Gellman and look out Tony Smith you might be sidelined because of these yin and yang symbolizations and the Eightfold way?

Culture changes perspective as much as new models that help us see things in different ways.

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

What relevance would Greene's statement have in relation, and the draw back of meaning other then the support of physics, makes my subjectives perceptions questionable?

But from the understanding of the expansion of the cosmos, what model is hidden in our perceptions, that we would seek to make the journey of humanity whole? By seeing and understanding, the beginning and the end of this universe, is a suttle change from one phase state change, to the next? From Planck Epoch to Grand Unification, and how suttle(high) the energy that makes its way in our world to see it is measured and in wonderous mode, call it the Oh my God Particle?

So then, the history of that universe is with us now. Where the possibility exists that such microstate blackholes would have the opportunities to indicate what shall begin and from where?

So what are we to think of this dimensional perspective that would describe for us this anomalie of Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm, experimentally is being done for the measure of those extra dimensions?

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?

Science and it's Geometries?

On the post preceding this one, although we talked about the nature of the symmetries in action, and within context of the Calabi Yau, there is a relatiosnhip that must be drawn to other quarters of our perceptions to help orientate not only this drive for understanding energy production, but it's basis in geometry as well.

The cyclical notion driving Turok and Steinhardt, had to be found in our meddling with the likes of M theory and the brane world happenings with those points? How could such a dynamcical world arise from such a point, and it leads into all kinds of wonderful journies of the abstract. What will we find those who hold tightly to the rail from seeing width and depth, as one looks over this large abyss called the Grand Canyon.

When a gas bubble in a liquid is excited by ultrasonic acoustic waves, it can emit short flashes of light suggestive of extreme temperatures inside the bubble. These flashes of light, known as 'sonoluminescence', occur as the bubble implodes, or cavitates. Now Didenko and Suslick show that chemical reactions occur during cavitation of a single, isolated bubble,and they go on to determine the yield of photons, radicals, and ions formed. (Photo credit: Kenneth S. Suslick and Kenneth J. Kolbeck)

Today's agreement to build the ITER project in Cadarache, France, is an important milestone for Europe. It is not only the energy sector that will benefit from this decision: I expect ITER to also boost widespread positive consequences in areas like nanotechnology or material research. ITER will hugely benefit our Lisbon goals, creating more jobs, more research and more global competitiveness", said today Paul Rübig MEP (A), EPP-ED spokesman in the Committee on Industry, Technology, Research and Energy (ITRE) of the European Parliament

You see it's just more then a issue about fusion? :) Any "cyclical nature" that would exemplfy not only the universe, but models of geometry used, "theoretically must be" very important from those other mathematical perspectives.

If such a exchange, as a blackhole could arise from such a collapse, no longer able to fuel it's momentum outward as the sun in expression, then how so the collapse of the blackhole now representing the fusion that drives the energy in our sun? Our universe? You see such a trait in most universal design, and in the production of energy, had to be drawn for perspective to recognize motivations to the extent this universe would turn back on itself?

How strange indeed, then that this universe rapidly expanding, might signal the inevitable collapse that we might have seen in the suns, could also point towards a deeper comprehension of our own universe in action??

Energy in/Energy out, and if you ignite the process, how would sustain it? Compression factors in blackholes, contain a lot of potential, and if you turn them inside/out, this strange speculation rises about the energy/matter relation?


The Universe as an ecosystem: Much like biologists, astronomers trace the flow of matter and energy from one form to another in order to understand the dynamics of the entire system and how it evolves. (Credit: L. Whitlock (GSFC))

Well, microstate blackholes are in production, as well as events going on in nature. So the sun is of value in other ways, that the colliders can't touch, but on a value largely reduced from the energies needed from that same sun? You see, you would need quite a large collider that could not exist here on earth?:)

There is of course a fear of the blackhole production as well, but such collapse would be significant and part of the larger understanding of what is natural in our daily lives.

Pierre Auger is very instrumental in understanding this design?:)



See:

Bubble Nucleation

New Spacetime Quantum World View?

Of course the source of my statement about Penrose needed some clarification so I'll put him here for reference. Those who had been following will also have know that the view of Gerard t' hooft amazingly, asks the same question?

Do we need a New spacetime Quantum world view?

By taking advantage of quantum phenomena such as entanglement, teleportation and superposition, a quantum computer could, in principle, outperform a classical computer in certain computational tasks. Entanglement allows particles to have a much closer relationship than is possible in classical physics. For example, two photons can be entangled such that if one is horizontally polarized, the other is always vertically polarized, and vice versa, no matter how far apart they are. In quantum teleportation, complete information about the quantum state of a particle is instantaneously transferred by the sender, who is usually called Alice, to a receiver called Bob. Quantum superposition, meanwhile, allows a particle to be in two or more quantum states at the same time

As said, I do not want to further expound on the fansty world of Lewis Carroll , but bring the concept of mirrorworld here for more consideration. IN that, the detectors, Alice and BOb are two photons, that entangle and show this causal relationship, where before the idea existed that such a link could have never been made.

You have to remember to make sense of this as a junior being exposed to the mass of informtaion out there, it required sifting to get to the essence of the issues. Hopefully I have lead the mind to consider this issue now in terms of what was spooky to einstein, is not so spooky to the entanglement issues?

The Future of the Quantum Mechanical View

Quantum gravity and black holes . Whenever particles are separated further than 10-33cm, the gravitational force between them is very adequately described by Einstein's theory of general relativity. But when they come closer, the gravitational force becomes strong, whereas gravity is more complicated than gauge theories. Finding a logically coherent theory telling us how particles behave at such small distance scales is a fundamental problem. The most dazzling problem is the question whether these particles will make microscopic black holes. Predicting the behavior of such tiny black holes is a deep theoretical challenge. Or maybe they can't form black holes? Formulating laws of physics that avoid black hole formation is even more difficult.

Microstate blackholes and blackholes of the cosmo, as triggers?

So we are indeed looking for this method, this trigger, that would unite both possible worlds, to understand as we look around us, something exists which we had never entertained before? Microstate blackholes and blackholes of the cosmo, as triggers?

The Trigger

Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Why no new Einstein?

This article entitled above has been thought about in terms of the issue brought forth by Peter Woit and Lubos Motl rspectively.

When I seen Sean's post it brought back to me the work I had been doing to understand the way in which such measures allow us to precieve the interactive feature of the world that few of us will ever see without these means of measure.



It also brought me back to how we see in terms of calorimetric views, in the Glast satelitte. Here was two methods, that used similar processes, to help us understand the interact feature we might seen in the reductionist priciples that are happening right now out in the cosmo and what the potential was through particle collisions.

Part of the counterpart of looking at particle creation would have been able to understand the part of the calorimeters that are used to measure the evidence produced. IN this context, it lead me to the Atlas information held at CERN. It also made me think of Glast determinations of early universe indications from the calorimeter located in the Glast satelitte.

Sean Carroll:

As a theorist (and one who grew up in astronomy departments), one of the most fascinating concepts in high-energy experiments is that of a trigger. Each detector will witness approximately one billion collisions per second, which is a lot. You might imagine that you're faced with two problems: simply recording all the data from each event, and then sifting through them for the interesting bits. You're right, but it's much worse than you think. That's because each event isn't just a few bytes if data; it's of order one megabyte per event. There's simply no way you could record all of the data.

So indeed such views move our consideration to what happens at these levels and the beginning of this process known as the trigger. Mine, is a generalized view and without inducing the features of Intelligent Design and such, I am still amazed that ths issue has moved some of these minds to wonder about the forces of light and darkness, and what these gentlemen might have seen as the "good and evil of the world?"

Is this what it has come down too? That the requirment of Cern will not have found the means to point us in the direction of the "basis of all design" and leave us to wonder what that trigger might have been? I think, as vague as I lead, I have been lead? On the contrary, such sharing that had taken place has alowed me the oortunity to explore these potentials amongst a segment of the population, that few had ever dared to enter froma public perspective.



It seems quite simple to me, that such a basic question belies the level of commitment that our forebears have in "directing us." To look at, "what could exist in the space around us," and we had not understood that something could exist in both worlds of design. That the weak and strong, might show us, that there is a basis? Again here I am cautioned by John Ellis's views.

Toward the end of a ten-year experiment in 1991, postdoc Hungye Dai of the University of Utah was puzzling over some really unusual data. The experiment was Fly’s Eye, which pioneered a new method of studying ultra-high-energy cosmic rays by monitoring the faint flashes of ultraviolet light produced in the sky when the particles hit the upper atmosphere. Lead scientist Pierre Sokolsky recalls when Dai showed him the anomalous numbers. Sokolsky thought they were a fluke from the detector: “You know, you always expect to see stuff like that, and it’s usually just junk,” says Sokolsky. “So I told him to go away, and to look at it some more.”

So we are indeed looking for this method, this trigger, that would unite both possible worlds, to understand as we look around us, something exists which we had never entertained before? Microstate blackholes and blackholes of the cosmo, as triggers?

But if this is so, then what language would suit us to know that the basis of this existance can operate in both seemingly unrelated views of GR and Quantum mechanics?

So like Smolin, we are looking hard for this trigger, and many scientists are engaged from different perspectives to say that if we unite in this view, then indeed the new spirit of Einstein was born, because we set him free amongst the population?

Missing E_T and its uses (LHC)?

Cosmological and Microstate Blackholes

Perspectives On Nature's Greatest Puzzles

Nima Arkani-Hamed
:

First rule of progress in science-better to follow your nose, then twiddle your thumbs

My perspectives are elementary generalizations from the views of those at the forefront of theoretcical research into comprehenson of the nature of this cosmo and the ideas of it's cyclical nature. Where else shal we consider this rebirth of sorts but to have been taken to the origins and how we percieve this same universe?

From the general public perspective concepts, which are developing will never make sense, if they did not understand the work that brought these two perspectives together and created this trend to the cosmological pallette for fun, with the theoretical approaches seen in high energy considerations?

Once these views of the cosmological design were contemplated, they revealled a deeper intricacy into the geometry/topological considerations. It was not to far a leap to considered the early universe foundations in the gravitational collapse of those same blackholes, would lead us to the ideas in high energy considerations.


Has the Track Record Been Poven?

Nima Arkani-Hamed:

Our Mantra:
LHC + L.C. will reveal natural theory of weak scale

Once it was understood that such balckhole creation could be idealic produced in the in high energy considerations, the expansive technique to developemental policies quickly reocgnized the diversity? With how the new views would form in minds which had been enaged in string theory. To understand well this covering, that had been placed over all the perspective leading through the standard model comprehension mode. They had discovered the nature of this cyclical universe already?:)

Should this be transcended into allotment of financial gain and to push perspective into the most approrpiate directions? Was it was safe and sound enough in the work that had been moved into the idealization of those same microstate blackholes, then the choice given John Ellis and others would have been far reaching in what direction such courses of event would lead too, into the future.

Having recognized that these trends would now force the move from theoretical design to one of experiementalist having developing proofs , John moves us forward here in the developement phase of cosmological interactions taking place in the field of experience of our earth and it's relation with the sun.

LIGO Translation

But lets not forget the work LIGO has done in transforming our views of the early history. Webber, John Wheeler and Kip Thorne and others, took it upon themselves to orientate the view not once, but many times to see where such progression has lead to the developement of LIGO operations and Detection.

This forced the current trends in string research to produce students that would move this subject into new directions? Now geared to questions of what that gravity might have surmised in its expression and developement. Hence the title of this thread.

Symmetry: Dimensions of Particle Physics

I thought it important that I present the infomrtaion that was tied to John Ellis's article in previous thread below and what was happening in regards to Microstate blackhole recognition.

Let it Rain
The most energetic particles in the universe have a message for us. The gigantic Pierre Auger Southern Observatory, still under construction in Argentina, is already trying to decipher it.
By Davide Castelvecchi

Most people I have read reveal the silence of common information, as a realization of Blackholes as the cosmological design, we like to play with. But when it comes to testing these extra dimensions, imagine indeed, that such length's we go too, helps us to adjust to what happens around us everyday.

From this conceptualization, much has changed in the propspective views? Staunch supportors of rejection, do not realize what could be implied of the extra energy dissappearing and how you would measure it, in our everyday surroundings?.

I give a philospohical explanation to help explain the realization of how we see in these extra dimensions The earlyhsiory of extending these ideas, calls for more educative functions with those who do not understand this extension and theoretics going out on this limb. Should it be so easily dismissed?


If you do not follow this history, you will never understand what Nima Arkani-Hamed, Sava Dimopoulos, and Gia Dvali been doing with extra dimensions. There is a conceptual feature here that I have spoken too in regards to gravity that few understand.

So as we see Einstein's Bubble, we come to recognize the consistancy with which we would engage information that arises from such bubbles being burst. They give us information about the contents of these spaces, and from such light, we wonder what has been revealled? Cosmologiclaly the whole universe is teaming with the understanding that there can never be this zero function? To have realize it is a very dynamcial process that is continous and cyclical in nature?

Underlying this view of a cyclical nature, is the realization that such events are geometrically/topologically driven and schematically express the whole frame work of this discussion. How suttle it is sometimes, that we would be dismayed by physicists who are speaking about the geometrics/topological functions, to realize they are incorporating the realizations of this contraction/expansive feature, not only in the cosmo, but in how we see into the nature around us now.

Of course this is from a junior mind on these things in terms of education, but hopefully the vsion and eyesight, is well enough that such discriptions displayed, has viable perspectives to share?

Shakespearean Quandry?

e^- or not to e⁺ :)

Light-matter interaction

Low energy phenomena  Photoelectric effect
Mid-energy phenomena  Compton scattering
High energy phenomena  Pair production

Part of the realization is that if we encounter this dynamical universe with ways to intuitive glance at the interplay of this black and white, I was drawn to the idealization of the matrices, and their involvement?

Pair Production

Every known particle has an antiparticle; if they encounter one another, they will annihilate with the production of two gamma-rays. The quantum energies of the gamma rays is equal to the sum of the mass energies of the two particles (including their kinetic energies). It is also possible for a photon to give up its quantum energy to the formation of a particle-antiparticle pair in its interaction with matter.

This is very touchy area for me, but I endeavor to what Glast determinations are revealling, as we move to consider the relevance of this interactive feature of the dark matter energy, in regards to the cosmological movement revealled by the Friedmann equation.

We needed this question of Shakespeare, to move our minds to the question of the ever constant becoming, to know that it would manifest in this cyclical nature of rejuvenation. Where blackhole and gravitonic condensation, can become viable features of phase state changes, taking us back the beginning of this universe, now?

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

Pg 206 and 207, of Superstrings, A Theory of Everything, by P.C.W.Davies and J. Brown

So lets cosider something else here where such dynamcial realization would point to microstate blackholes. This will follow later for consideration.