Will Quantum Gravity Get Us to the Stars?

The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) 2nd International Conference in Ponta Delgada, Azores. July 7-12, 2009. Topics include cosmology, astrophysics, gravity, quantum gravity, quantum theory, and high-energy physics. http://www.fqxi.org/

The Meduso-Anthropic Principle is a speculative theory by Louis Crane (1994). The theory develops Cosmological natural selection by leading cosmologist, Lee Smolin and suggests the development of the universe is similar to the development of Corals and Jellyfish. The Medusa generations alternate with Polyp generations. Similarly it is suggested, the Universe develops Intelligent life and Intelligent life produces new Baby universes. Our universe may also exist as a Black hole in a Parallel universe. Extraterrestrial life there may have created that black hole.

Bringing the Heavens down to Earth

If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007......Thus, hypothetically, the energy required to produce black holes is well within the range of the LHC, making it a "black-hole factory". As Stephen Hawking has taught us, these mini black holes would be extremely hot little objects that would dissipate all their energy very rapidly by emitting radiation and particles before they wink out of existence. The properties of the Hawking radiation could tell us about the properties of the extra spatial dimensions, although there are still uncertainties in the theory at this stage. See: here

 

We have been assured black hole production can be quite safe so we can deal with the idea  that such production quickly dissipates on the level with which we would and can make them?:)  So the level at which such an idea is presented would of course be as suggested as to say that this universe in all it's ability is at the level with which we can make black-holes useful?  Black holes of sufficient size.:) I find that really interesting,  just because we are here.

See Also:

• Strangelets Do Not Exist?
• Blackhole evaporation: What's New From the Subatomic-Sized Holes ?

Blackhole evaporation: What's New From the Subatomic-Sized Holes ?

...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

See What is Cerenkov Radiation?

We are being "politically correct" (a sociological observation) when we change the wording of the "microstate blackhole production" to "Sub Atomic Sized Holes?" To maybe "inferr" the desired differences of cosmological blackholes, versus, what we see quickly evaporating in subatomic-sized to be revealed in a footprint?

David Kestenbaum, NPR-Alvaro De Rujula is a physicist at CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory. Three hundred feet below his desk, workers are building a massive particle accelerator that will be capable of reproducing energies present just after the big bang.

Let's pretend that the reporting was not so good back in 1999, and the information we had then was to cause some needless concerns? Good reporting already existed in term of what the Dark Matter was doing. Now it's okay if someone else saids it, and reveals all the dark matter info with Wikipedia. How nice:)Your credible?

Was there any evidence to think a method was already determined "back then" and has become part of the process of discovery?

Bad reporting?

At first bad reporting? Producing fear into the public mind?

In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced." August 1999

Peter Steinberg, when at Quantum diaries, lead us through this.

The creepy part of these kind of discussions is that one doesn't say that RHIC collisions "create" black holes, but that nucleus-nucleus collisions, and even proton-proton collisions, are in some sense black holes, albeit black holes in some sort of "dual" space which makes the theory easier.

Alvaro was the one who put "James Blodgett of Risk assessment" at ease in regards to strangelets. Now, could strangelets have been considered a consequence of the evaporation? Does this not look similar?

deconstruction: event display

Usually all physicists see are the remnants of a new particle decaying into other types of particles. From that, they infer the existence of the new species and can determine some of its characteristics.

SeeNeutrino Mixing Explained in 60 seconds

Now everything is safe and cozy with these subatomic-sized holes which would simply evaporate. :) How would you know "what is new" after the subatomic holes had evaporated? Are sterile neutrinos new?

While these paragraphs have been selective, they show that experimental processes are being used and detective work applied.

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

Any add on experimental processes at Cern with regards to the LHC are reflect in this second paragraph?

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunnelling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

See Gran Sasso

So while one may think I have some "new process" to make the world happy, it is nothing of the sort. It is interpreting the current theoretical models in regards to current experimental research.

For some reason some scientist think that one can be devoid of this reasoning and apply it to any model/person, while the scientist/lay people already know what is required.

This has been reflected time and again through the interactions of scientist with the public. What is one to think when one scientist calls another scientists devoid of such reason, while he works to develop the string theory model. They don't like that do they?:)

So do you think that Clifford of Asymptotia is practising what he did not like in Peter Woit's summation of the state of affairs in string theory? That while criticizing him he was doing the same thing to others? I laughed when I came across the censoring post on Not even Wrong, and why I had to write my new article on Censoring.

I have never seen such "happy trigger fingers" as to deletion of posts that would contradict the statements Clifford could make about another person, or what Peter Woit could say about "Clifford censoring" statements. Peter provides a forum for those who feel shafted who could voice there displeasure?:)

Don't worry Peter I certainly won't be crying on your blog. Deletion knows it boundaries in terms of censoring there too.:) But anyway, onto the important stuff.

This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks. See Strangelets and Strange Matter

Tunnelling in the string theory landscape

Now it may not seem so odd that I would place a string theory landscape picture up for revue, and have one think about hill climbers and valley crossers. Would it be wrong not to include the "potential hills" and the thought of the "blackhole horizon?" It was "theoretical appealing" as a thought experiment to me, to think about what could traverse those potential hills. We had to use "a mechanism" to help us understand how the cross over point was being established and "new universes" begin to unfold? New particle creation from such collision processes had to be established first. Both at Cern and with "high energy particles from space." IceCube was to be the backdrop for the footprint, and resulting Cerenkov radiation from that collision process?

One needed to see such experiment as taking place currently to help us see the jest of where science is currently taking us on our journey's. So you had to be able to see this process in action back to the insecurities of our ignorance, in relation too, sub-atomic sized holes...ahem...dualites?

So you had to know that the collision process would detail some "crossover point" for consideration? What this means that "after the collision process" you are given a new particle with which to work.

You need to be able to capture this "new particle" and the mediums with which this is done, are the barriers that supply the back drop for foot prin,t to what can be traversed in faster then light potentials. Again Gran Sasso, and let's not forget ICECUBE.

Cross over point

Is it not important to see the experimental process as a natural one?

Bringing the Heavens down to Earth

If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007. See here

So here we are talking about the "before" and "after" and we had not spoken about the point of exchange here? If I were to tell you that such a reductionistic process had taken us to the limits what the heck could this mean? That we had indeed found the transference point of energy to matter, matter to energy and we say it may be the perfect fluids that supplies us this "anomalistic behaviour" with which we will introduce the GR? Talk about Navier-stokes in relation to the perfect fluid and what and how something can traverse through and come out on the other side?

Tunnelling in Faster then Light

Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

Omega=the actual density to the critical density

If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?

Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?



A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.

So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.


Getty Images

Although a 1916 paper by Ludwig Flamm from the University of Vienna [4] is sometimes cited as giving the first hint of a wormhole, "you definitely need hindsight to detect it," says Matt Visser of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Einstein and Rosen were the first to take the idea seriously and to try to accomplish some physics with it, he adds. The original goal may have faded, but the Einstein-Rosen bridge still pops up occasionally as a handy solution to the pesky problem of intergalactic travel.

There are two cases in which the thoughts about faster then light particles are created and this is the part where one tries to get it right so as not to confuse themselves and others.

Wormholes?

Plato:

So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?

Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

Tunneling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunneling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."

Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?



This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

Plato:

A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature

Plasmas and Bose condensates

So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

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).

So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

What are the main goals of the LHC?-

The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.

It was once thought that antimatter was a perfect 'reflection' of matter - that if you replaced matter with antimatter and looked at the result in a mirror, you would not be able to tell the difference. We now know that the reflection is imperfect, and this could have led to the matter-antimatter imbalance in our Universe.

The strongest limits on the amount of antimatter in our Universe come from the analysis of the diffuse cosmic gamma-rays arriving on Earth and the density fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. If one asumes that after the Big Bang, the Universe separated somehow into different domains where either matter or antimatter was dominant, then at the boundaries there should be annihilations, producing cosmic gamma rays. In both cases the limit proposed by current theories is practically equivalent to saying that there is no antimatter in our Universe.

So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.

"Lead by Physics," Faces the "Trouble With Physics"

The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory is a world-class scientific research facility that began operation in 2000, following 10 years of development and construction. Hundreds of physicists from around the world use RHIC to study what the universe may have looked like in the first few moments after its creation. RHIC drives two intersecting beams of gold ions head-on, in a subatomic collision. What physicists learn from these collisions may help us understand more about why the physical world works the way it does, from the smallest subatomic particles, to the largest stars


Well I have to deal with first things first here. This article above correlates the one given by Stefan. This is not to contest what you are saying, just to show you the informtaion I myself had gone through to arrive at the conclusions I do.

Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question Risk
By Carolyn Weaver

Seen from above, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, or RHIC, at New York’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, looks like a racetrack. And it is a kind of race track: two “beam pipes” in a tunnel nearly four kilometers around, in which gold nuclei are accelerated to close to the speed of light, and are crashed into each other at intersecting points along the way. Out of the kinetic energy of those collisions, new matter is created for a brief instant: a shower of quarks and gluons, the smallest particles known – and at seven trillion degrees, hotter than anything now in the universe.



Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg
“It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.

You say strangelets do not exist? And that no connection has been found between string theory, and strangelets. I have to then argue my case so you see it in light of what the reductionistic physics is actually doing, while string theory and it's energy values hover overhead of all these interactions. How th epaticle inclination must also include microstate blackhole creation.

So bear with me if you can.

Hi Plato,

strange matter and strangelets are a very interesting topic, but, unfortunately, there has been no experimental evidence for them so far. They are not really connected to string theory either, besides the fact that it was an early paper of Witten that resuscitated interest in them with nuclear physicists, I think.

Strangelets have been thought of as possible culprits for RHIC disaster scenarios (besides the ubiquitous black holes ;-), and as responsible for potential cosmic ray particles beyond the GZK cutoff.

But as far as I know, there has been no experimental verification of any of these ideas (and the world still exists: RHIC has produced no greedy strangelets which would have eaten up the Earth).

In the case of the potential quark star you cite, RX J185635-375, again, and unfortunately, as far as I remember, it came out that the radius determination was not completely safe. Bottomline was that this star could be well understood as a common neutron star. I am not completely sure, though, about the current status of this object, whether it is thought to be a quark star or not.

Anyway, it is a good example for an exciting observation which is reported in the press, but which has to be partially revisd later - only that these revisions don't make in the press releases. I guess it would often be quite interesting to have a kind of follow-up reporting, where one could read what is, eventually, the fate of some discovery that has been announced in the press.

The strange particles I was talking about are not strangelets, but the common hadrons with strangeness, especially the Ξs and the Ωs, with two and three strange quarks, respectively. These are the particles that I had mentioned in my earlier post, and whereof I should finish the second part, finally ;-). You typically find much more of these particles in nucleus-nucleus collisions than in (properly scaled) nucleon-nucleus collisions, which is a strong indication for an intermediate QGP state, where stange-antistrang quark pairs can easily be produced.

Best, stefan

One, as we know can make wide sweeping generalization about the physics and why is it that any position taken by any scientist would not have been one that becomes the point of departure for all scientists? An example her ei the rationship to the Heavy Ion collsions an dstringtheory and by this very nature to the strangelets as postulated.

This article below is to correlate with the article you showed me of 2004, while I had made this ocnlusion myself early in 2006, lets not forget the number of people involved in the "ghost particle, and Pauli" through out the years and what we have seen theoretically of the strangelets as they had been related to the disaster scenario as consequential microstate blackholes created in the RHIC and LHC.

Is this too drastic a scenario to have you think about what all these “particles in press” are saying about the science, that any one scientist themselves might be following to correct? You say, "just get it right?" Well there are many within the blogs who are writers for those articles? Why do you think they are amongst you?

I had noticed the grouping and conversations between blogs that had been developing over the last year and half. I continue to see some of the same people. Some, that constantly referred to the reporting that goes on. So I had to address this or forever be banished to the realm of reporting as someone just profiled.

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

Three models of strangelet production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions have been proposed in the 1980s and 1990s: coalescence [10], thermal statistical production [11], and distillation from a Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) [12, 13]. The first two models usually predict low strangelet production cross sections at mid-rapidity, as verified by measurements of the related processes of coalescence of nucleons into nuclei [14]. If a QGP is created in heavy ion collisions, it could cool down by distillation (kaon emission) and condense to strange-quark-rich matter in its ground state – a strangelet. However, this requires a net baryon excess and a non-explosive process in the collisions [12, 15]. Neither of these conditions is
favored at mid-rapidity in ultra-high energy heavy ion collisions, as suggested by results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL [16]. Recently a new mechanism for strangelet

I want you to have a good look at the number of names listed in this Pdf file as well the universities involve.

Clifford of Asymptotia made this point clear about the vast network of scientists even within the string theory network of people and about who knows whom? Can you possibly know everyone, or, like the paper whose citations are referred to more as we refer to any particular scientist? We then come to see the make up and nature as we hold our views to the particular few.

So before I begin here I wanted to make it clear, that having spent considerable time as hobby and interest about science. It is not without my own motivations that the interest would be the memory of one’s childhood, or the magazine that we looked at, but the reality we are dealing with and what we call the “nature of things.”

An anomaly that cannot be explained nor shall it be removed because of the lack of evidence. It’s just one of those things that you cannot change in the person’s make up who has seen the world in a different way then normal. So shall he endeavor to accumulate all the things that are wrong to destabilization the view of truth of the world just so he can corrupt all those around him?

I ask myself the question about "what is natural" because I seen what scientists were doing to each other about the theoretical/concepts/ideas models that they were adopting in their research, that I wanted to make sure that what I had been researching had been as up to date.

Would one "leave out information that I had assembled" as they deal with me?

As I have said before while the students have been engaged in the classroom I had been following the physics development as best I could. Spent years watching and learning

So here's the thing.

If I did not answer Stefan at Backreaction about the information about strangelets then it might have been left off where Stefan decided too as he continues to show his elementary particle thinking( finish the second part Stefan).

Continued reference to strangelets might everyone think the conclusion as written I the way Stefan has shown it? Would information I had been developing have been less than the standard of what scientists hold as standard. How could anyone know it all? Hold the badge over the trial of LHC or RHIC and say I had broken the law with my insolence and corruptible behavior?:) Non! Qui?

So here again is the conundrum I had placed in front of me as I looked and interacted with the various blogs who have commented on Lee Smolin’s book, “The trouble With Physics.”

But first let me then deal with Stefan at Backreaction.

Lubos Motl:

Well, I think that even if someone believes that theoretical physics can't be trusted - and many people clearly do - there exists a less scientific argument why the accelerator won't lead to such a catastrophe: the Earth is bombed by a lot of very high-energy cosmic rays and the center-of-mass energy of the collisions is comparable to the LHC energies. So far, these collisions haven't destroyed the Earth, so it is reasonable that some additional collisions we create won't be able to do so either.

While I had these similar thoughts it was not wothpt some basis the Blogett would have pointe dyou to think about strnagelets and then in my own assumptions, the comic particle collsions from what Ellis had taught us to think about. Yes, it was the natural collider in space for sure, and it's "energy values" well beyond what is availiable at LHC.

So yes "Microstate creation of blackholes in space"

In strangelets do not exist, I had come to the same conclusion Stefan did about what is "theoretically challenged" might have engaged the thinking mind as to the relationship to what the neutrino may have been in that exercise of the QGP, compared to this one on strangelets.

So I gathered information to help me see the direction the physics was going. Least it escaped the mantra that I had been hearing exemplified in my dealings as best I can.

“Lead by the Physics.” Now I face, "the trouble with Physics."

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

The Fate of our Planet?

Are Strangelets Natural?-Saturday, September 30, 2006

Star Lite Public Outreach

In regards to the QGP(Quark Gluon Plasma) I thought such a creation important from the ideas of what happens in assessing any beginning?



This thought arose from what was revealled in terms of "Microstate blackhole" production and the circumstances from such gold ion collisions.

If we are lead experimentally to such a place, then what may we say of "reductionistic circumstances" and it's relation to the beginning of the universe?



In my GRand Quantum conjecture, such thinking to have established the origins of "quantum perception" along with the understanding of GR and it's curvatures?

Who would of thought such "an application" and ignore what is driving the perspective around blackhole hole creation? It's "microstate properties?"

Andy Strominger:

This was a field theory that lived on a circle, which means it has one spatial dimension and one time dimension. We derived the fact that the quantum states of the black hole could be represented as the quantum states of this one-plus-one dimensional quantum field theory, and then we counted the states of this theory and found they exactly agreed with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

I pointed out "Strominger" in this case to help direct the "existance of perception" simultaneously of what is being related, not only in our early universe, but from the understanding of what "quantum perception" is doing in relation to reductionistcally driven physics?

Such a "relation and assumption of microstate blackholes," helps to direct supersymmetrical ideas, to what the "collapse of the blackhole is doing" in terms of the creation of this quark Gluon plasma state.

Are they the same in terms of what happens in the cosmological blackhole and what is created in the collider?

Ask a Astrophysicist

The Question:Can you explain to me what quantum gravity is, and if so how does it relate to black holes?

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

They both from what I have understood so far would have needed to account for the "classifications" Strominger had pointed out for us?

What is Blackhole Entrophy?

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.

One would have had to conclude that the "energy states" are very importnat here, as well as the nature, and the way such a process is related in terms of those reductionsitic energy derivations?

Who is Boltzman? What is Chaos?

In the presence of gravitational field (or, in general, of any potential field) the molecules of gas are acted upon by the gravitational forces. As a result the "concentration of gas molecules" is not the same at various points of the space and described by Boltzman distribution law:

The "energy and decay(gravitonically considered and extended from the implication of GR)" have to be reconciled in our understanding of the blackhole, in regards to the nature of the microstate blackhole perceptions? The "evidentry" particle creations exemplify the energy distributions?

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

I tried to follow the history as best I could, and the resulting worries earlier linked in extra links seen below, attest to the research that I followed. Can we safely say now, that strangelets do not exist?

Quantum character of black holesby Adam D. Helfer

Black holes are extreme manifestations of general relativity, so one might hope that exotic quantum effects would be amplified in their vicinities, perhaps providing clues to quantum gravity. The commonly accepted treatment of quantum corrections to the physics around the holes, however, has provided only limited encouragement of this hope. The predicted corrections have been minor (for macroscopic holes): weak fluxes of low-energy thermal radiation which hardly disturb the classical structures of the holes. Here, I argue that this accepted treatment must be substantially revised. I show that when interactions among fields are taken into account (they were largely neglected in the earlier work) the picture that is drawn is very different. Not only low-energy radiation but also ultra-energetic quanta are produced in the gravitationally collapsing region. The energies of these quanta grow exponentially quickly, so that by the time the hole can be said to have formed, they have passed the Planck scale, at which quantum gravity must become dominant. The vicinities of black holes are windows on quantum gravity.

Having been holding onto the thoughts published by Peter Steinberg," Richard and Me how could I refuse to acknowledge that such strangelets might indeed not exist, having been given experimental verification as to procedures resulting in this Risk assessment consultation.

The relations to cosmic correlations were drawn in my research, as I tried to understand what was going on in a everyday scenario, as we saw the elevation to cosmological colliders making the statements that they do.


Ion-Smashing Yields New Knowledge, But Some Still Question RiskBy Carolyn Weaver

“It’s basically a living embodiment of E=mc squared,” says Brookhaven physicist Peter Steinberg. “Einstein’s theory told us a hundred years ago that you can trade off energy for mass, and vice versa. We’re essentially converting the kinetic energy, the energy from the motion of these nuclei, converting it into lots of particles.”

The four detectors that bestride the collision points are massive machines, with “time projection chambers” that record the collisions and their after-moments. The latest results made big news last year when Brookhaven physicists reported that the quark-gluon plasma was not a gas as expected, but rather a very dense liquid.

So if I had thought for a moment about John Ellis's contributions to furthering the layman understanding, it was quickly understood that the energies involved had to have many events to conclude what may be happening on such a large scale, might be happening in the colliders. Quite simple really?

Would it be so dangerous that such energy considerations required the work of Star to help ease fears with which the layman population could have turned into a frenzy of religious doomsday scenarios?

Strangelet Search at RHICby STAR Collaboration

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

See:

Blackhole Creations

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Microstate Blackhole Production

Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

Accretion Disks

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

What Are those Quantum Microstates

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

More on Dual Nature of Blackhole

In some theories, microscopic black holes may be produced in particle collisions that occur when very-high-energy cosmic rays hit particles in our atmosphere. These mini-black-holes would decay into ordinary particles in a tiny fraction of a second and would be very difficult to observe in our atmosphere.

The ATLAS Experiment offers the exciting possibility to study them in the lab (if they exist). The simulated collision event shown is viewed along the beampipe. The event is one in which a mini-black-hole was produced in the collision of two protons (not shown). The mini-black-hole decayed immediately into many particles. The colors of the tracks show different types of particles emerging from the collision (at the center).

The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole

We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole. In previous works, we have argued that the large $s$ behaviour of the total QCD cross section is due to production of dual black holes, and that in the QCD effective field theory it corresponds to a nonlinear soliton of the pion field. Now we argue that the RHIC fireball is this soliton. We calculate the soliton (black hole) temperature, and get $T=4a /\pi$, with $a$ a nonperturbative constant. For $a=1$, we get $175.76 MeV$, compared to the experimental value of the fireball ``freeze-out'' of about $176 MeV$. The observed $\eta/ s$ for the fireball is close to the dual value of $1/4\pi$. The ``Color Glass Condensate'' (CGC) state at the core of the fireball is the pion field soliton, dual to the interior of the black hole. The main interaction between particles in the CGC is a Coulomb potential, due to short range pion exchange, dual to gravitational interaction inside the black hole, deconfining quarks and gluons. Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

The case for mini black holes

Geodesics in Kerr space-time, as predicted by the theory of general relativity. Small black holes produced, for example at colliders, are expected to be spinning. Image: Numerical simulation by Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert Einstein Institute (AEI); visualization by W Benger, Zuse Institute, Berlin/AEI

Approaches of the Gauss-Bonnet type, which include quadratic terms in scalar curvature in the Lagrangian, are good candidates for a description beyond general relativity as they can be supported both by theoretical arguments (heterotic strings in particular) and by phenomenological arguments (Taylor expansion in curvature). In such a case, the coupling constant of the Gauss-Bonnet term, namely the quantum character of the gravitational theory used (and the link with the underlying string theory) can also be reconstructed and the LHC would become a very valuable tool for studying speculative gravitation models.

Other promising avenues are also being investigated for new physics. Firstly, the black holes formed may be excellent intermediate states for highlighting new particles. When the collision energy is higher than the Planck scale ED, the cross-section for the creation of black holes is quite large (~500 pbarn) and has no suppression factor. Moreover, when the temperature of the black hole is higher than the mass of a particle, the particle must be emitted during evaporation in proportion to its number of internal degrees of freedom. There is thus a definite potential for the search for the Higgs or for supersymmetric particles in the evaporation products of black holes, possibly with cross-sections much greater than for the direct processes. Finally, taking account of a D-dimensional cosmological constant also modifies the evaporation law. If the constant is sufficiently high - which is possible without contradicting the low value measured in our brane - the temperature and the coupling coefficients with the entities emitted could be the signature of this particular structure of space-time. It would be quite neat and certainly surprising that a measurement of the cosmological constant in the bulk should come from the LHC!

Microscopic black holes are thus a paradigm for convergence. At the intersection of astrophysics and particle physics, cosmology and field theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity, they open up new fields of investigation and could constitute an invaluable pathway towards the joint study of gravitation and high-energy physics. Their possible absence already provides much information about the early universe; their detection would constitute a major advance. The potential existence of extra dimensions opens up new avenues for the production of black holes in colliders, which would become, de facto, even more fascinating tools for penetrating the mysteries of the fundamental structure of nature

Public Service Announcement: Black Holes @ RHIC by John 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.

No Black Holes Today, Thanks

As George Musser remarked to me in an email,

Egads, what a mispresented story. Nastase says they might be *dual* to black holes -- a relation of interest in string theory, but hardly the same thing as an honest-to-god black hole.

Exactly. The point of Nastase's paper is not that the RHIC fireball may be a black hole but that it might be described by the same math used for black holes. Such duality is vital in modern physics, because some problems are easier to formulate and solve within one mathematical framework rather than another, although both are applicable.

Now, if you want to know about the real prospects for making microscopic black holes by colliding particles in an accelerator, watch for the May issue of Scientific American, which will, by happy coincidence, have a feature on that very subject.

See:

Microstate Blackhole Production

Some Distant Bounding Surface

SPACE, THE FINAL FRONTIER

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Some of the older, and not so old, when they hear "this title" above, do they think of Startrek's exploits in space? As we were given "a view" of space travellers going from one end of the universe to another and as they encountered alien civilizations and such.

Well I don't want to take you to this extreme, and suffer "alien discrimmination" in the "new thinking" of society, so I will just move back a bit and begin with Hubble pictures, and what previews these give to us.


L.L. Orionis colliding with the Orion Nebula flow

The Hubble Space Telescope imaged this view in February 1995. The arcing, graceful structure is actually a bow shock about half a light-year across, created from the wind from the star L.L. Orionis colliding with the Orion Nebula flow. For more information on this image, see HubbleSite. Click on the image for a very large version. Credit: NASA, The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

This post is the result of what is held in mind in terms of the way we measure things in space and the perspectives we form around it. I am going to jump forward quite drastically and then backwards, and all over the place to gently try and gain perspective in mind, about how we are seeing these picutres Paul shared here and what was gained in terms of understanding the jet in the pictures that was shown in previously.

So we are given a picture of early history in terms of "the jet" and what is gained in the picture offered us, in how we see. Not only in space perspective and some of the things gathered around it in terms of that space, but ideas, related to how the sparkle of sunshine seems to catch your eye, as it appears quite blindingly to the eye as observation, is realized in a certain way.:)


A Classical Discription of the Quantum World?

Here I was introduced to models on the micro perspective views that held a relationship to cosmological design. This was a new way in which to see geometrical idealization, as I engaged early universe, with General Relativity, as it is played out on the cosmological canvas given to us in our pictureof the universe.

Do you think we can become tainted when our views are microsperspectively organized that the phrase "the Phoenix" is more then the mythical bird born out of mind, but also borne out of the beginnings of this universe? So these people who help us organize our thoughts held my attention.



Shall we be really critical of the way the eye then sees, and what observations of the universe has allowed us deeper inspection of those early events? These are to be considered, without holding a certain position, as we use model and assumptions gained from insight. Would we discard these models as they push our mnds beyond th ebundaries of the edge, while we understood now that the universe never arose from nothing. It couldn't. Accept it?:)

So in way, perspective had been pushed to inquire about what can be gained, if we progress these views in a very scientific way. It is the least we can do, if not, we are but assigned some ID'er classification, and suffer, the wrath of mythisms, that we had been purpetrating on a society, without understanding the repercussion?

Suffered under the point system of John Baez's crackpotism?:)

It is something that happens, as maturity and age of reason begins to manifest. We have questions about things we do not understand. We can still hold on to our dreams, our artistic inflections and sounds inhernet, with the creative side of us in bloom. We all struggle, yet there is truth to what the intuitive said developed in us, and the "correlation of cognition" as we progress through this science.



Cognition and purity of thought would be assigned the universal language of mathematics, yet the mathematical mind had been projected into the way it might seen nature, and discribed it for us.

Concept development, arises from it, and is interwoven into our views of reality. Our conversations of the day, the eyes that bring pictures forward. Current day 's progress of the insight as "pictured measure." Hubble in all it's glory. How so the universe, as it is today around us?

No it is a gradual thing that we understand as we look at this subject, that it is based on reasoning, that occupies research, and enlightenment, over time. That we would want "not" to mislead in any way. Clear Mind.

Having this in developing perspective, all one has to do is think of the "early universe" introduction we had gained in association, to know, that blackhole creation in colliders, high energy particles in cosmological collsions, and the concerns now developing, had developed from consequences. John Ellis, or Peter Steinberg introduced us to Pierre Auger and the experiments involved respectively.

So More on the Final Frontier

So I began with a term that seems quite relevant to perspective of the public as we were witness to space travel , that we now take that term and use it to push further perspective.



COSMOLOGY AS SEEN FROM VENICE - Lawrence M. Krauss (2001)

Probably the most important characteristic of the space in which we live is that it is expanding. The expansion rate, given by the Hubble Constant, sets the overall scale for most other observables in cosmology. Thus it is of vital importance to pin down its value if we hope to seriously constrain other cosmological parameters.

Getting Ducks in a Row

Energising the quest for 'big theory'
By Paul Rincon

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

Good to see Joanne contributions here as well as Marks.

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

Peter Steinberg

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

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

Plato:

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

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

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

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

DumbBiologist:

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

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

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

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


Lubos Motl:

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

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.

Microstate Blackhole Production

I thought it important that some clarity be brought to this subject. So by bringing some information together that I had been thinking about, I would blog it.

Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole.

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.

This is not to undersell how interesting RHIC collisions are: if we in fact can use this "dual black hole" language to describe the collisions we are making daily, this may be a real advance in our understanding. But no-one I have ever spoken to has suggested that this black hole can or does act like a traditional black hole in our observed universe (although this possibility has been considered, and has been generally discounted as an implausible scenario).

Missing Energy

Given the dearth of knowledge about gravity in the subcentimeter range, the group is looking for any kind of deviation from expectations, not just extradimensional effects, he says. Nonetheless, the excitement about extra dimensions helps spur the group on, Price says.

If the strength of gravity takes a sharp turn upward at around 1 TeV, as the Stanford-Trieste scenario implies, an opportunity opens for testing this theory also in accelerators. Collisions at such energies could produce gravitons in large numbers, and some of these particles would immediately vanish into the extra dimensions, carrying energy with them. Experimenters would look for an unusual pattern of so-called missing energy events.

This and more subtle effects of extra dimensions could show up at existing accelerators, such as LEP and the Tevatron at Fermilab, only if the dimensions have scales nearly as big as a millimeter. The powerful LHC will greatly improve the chances for detecting missing energy events and other prominent extradimension effects.

In 1930 Wolfgang Pauli proposed a solution to the missing energy in nuclear beta decays, namely that it was carried by a neutral particle This was in a letter to the Tubingen congress. Enrico Fermi in 1933 named the particle the "neutrino" and formulated a theory for calculating the simultaneous emission of an electron with a neutrino. Pauli received the Nobel Prize in 1945 and Fermi in 1938. The problem in detection was that the neutrinos could penetrate several light years depth of ordinary matter before they would be stopped.

Dissident:

If you perform an experiment in which some of the energy you put in seems to disappear somewhere, unaccounted for, then yes, you have some explaining to do. Conservation of energy is not something we’d give up lightly; rewriting all those textbooks would be exhausting… but large extra dimensions would certainly not top the list of things to consider.

First of all, “missing energy” is a normal feature of collider experiments, since you can’t expect to catch all the stuff that comes out of them. You have two particle beams banging into each other inside a tunnel of finite width; any decay products flying off into the tunnel are lost. Around the collision point, you have detectors which, while huge and most impressive, also have blind angles and - most importantly - finite size.

Stanford’s Savas Dimopoulos: New Dimensions in Theoretical Physics

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

The machine, dubbed ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS), is one of four facilities to be located at a powerful accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), now under construction near Geneva, in Switzerland