History of the Universe and the Standard Model

Who would of thought the history of the universe could have ever been contained in this one moment? While it had been translated to 13.7 billions years, what is the value of recognizing this vast history, to what is contained in that one specific moment held in context of the collisions, we have in the colliders? What takes place between high energy particles, and what this process helps us to understand, as we see neutrino effects, talked about in ICECUBE.



So while we ponder this momenet in time, some things became apparnet as one reads words retro spect, that help to clarify what had been going on in my mind, while never really undertanding that what had been transpiring in my thinking, had been more or less, described from another perspectve as well.

I talked about "correlation of cognition," becuase it is important that we understnd intuitive development. That we build confidence in ourselves, as we move through the informtaion and see that what we had been learning, had taken us to another level of comprehension, as if, having digested the model in question, whatever that may be.

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

The Four Fundamental Forces

Electromagnetism causes like-charged objects to repel each other and oppositely charged objects to attract each other. The electromagnetic force binds negative electrons to the positive nuclei in atoms and underlies the interactions between atoms. Its force carrier particle is a photon.

The strong force binds quarks together. While the electromagnetic force works to repel the positively charged protons in the nucleus of an atom, the strong force is stronger and overrides these effects. The particle that carries the strong force is called a gluon, so-named because it so tightly "glues" quarks together into larger particles like protons and neutrons. The strong force is also responsible for binding protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.

Gravity is the phenomenon by which massive bodies, such as planets and stars, are attracted to one another. The warps and curves in the fabric of space and time are a result of how these massive objects influence one another through gravity. Any object with mass exerts a gravitational pull on any other object with mass. You don't fly off Earth's surface because Earth has a gravitational pull on you. Gravity is thought to be carried by the graviton, though so far no one has found evidence for its existence.

The weak force is responsible for different types of particle decays, including a process called beta decay. This can occur when an atom's nucleus contains too many protons or too many neutrons -- a neutron that turns into a proton undergoes beta minus decay; a proton that changes into a neutron experiences beta plus decay. This weak force is mediated by the electri- cally charged W- and W+ force carrier particles and the neutral Z0 force carrier particle.

Reductionistic Views

Part of this discription is important from the understanding, that how we see, and talk about things that we do in let's say Q<-->Q measure and distance, have some relation to what we are talking about and discribing in collision states. So this entry here helps to this degree, to maintain some cohesion and understanding, while differences in model and experimental conceptions are explored.


Cosmic Rays

Conservatively the idealization, is the progression from the understanding of Unifying forces, and progression to conceptual understanding found and revealled in the world of natural processes. Who would have ever thought that platonic forms could have been capture in the mind of a Gellman, while a Feynman help to introduce us to the interactions?

Fig. 1. The four forces (or interactions) of Nature, their force carrying particles and the phenomena or particles affected by them. The three interactions that govern the microcosmos are all much stronger than gravity and have been unified through the Standard Model

.

This is what I like to do. Summations while they be ill time to a better comprehension demanded, I found this a wonderfiul idealization in moving intuitively perception to a clearer understanding, as I looked at ICECUBE. All that I am encountering through exploration of principles embued in experimental observations, according to what "new" physics might be revealled.

While the experimental situation has been set up( who determine what experiments would be challenged?) All the worker bees ready to do their parts. How well had they understood this process, to potentially reveal a better insight into what will come next?

There had to be evidence of your theoretical positions in nature.

Would you be so hesitant to just sit and wait, while the opportunity exists for you to unite these experimental procedures? Into a pciture of a complete scenario, as you understood it in nature. How energy of the particle collisons within our environ and the resulting particle dissipation, revealled as the neutrino base experiment given to signs as what?

So what is this unifying concept, that we could see the strong force, to the weak being explained, while we had paid attention and witness to many things going on with earth, as an observatory, in it's completeness?

At this moment then the division and valuation of experimental cross sectioning of fundamental forces( experiments respectively), would have been placement of "all aspects of the unifying forces" as it's measure. That we could have correlated across the map, all aspects united in some unique translation, as LIGO, or Pierre Auger, or Collider experiments, along with Ice CUbe, paints a extremely interesting picture for us.

What "new math" will be borne in the minds with "new concepts and models" to bring analogy into context as natures way?

See:

Mathematical Enlightenment

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.

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.

Quark Gluon Plasma II: Strangelets

You have to follow the logic developement, which is confusing, because in one respect "Risk assessment" does not think of cosmic collisions as interesting comparisons to microstate production, yet as I travelled through the information held in context of Pierre Auger experiments, Jaffe's statement from 1999 makes for some interetsing discussion below.

Is it true or not?

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."

There does not appear to be suppression of particles with a high transverse momentum in Deuteron+Gold collisions: In order to confirm the observation of suppression, a control experiment was run by PHENIX in the Spring of 2003. Here, a collision was studied in which a medium such as the Quark-Gluon Plasma is not expected to be formed. The collisions studied were small deuteron nuclei colliding with Gold nuclei. In this case, more, rather than fewer, particles are seen with a high transverse momentum. This observation confirms that the suppression seen in Gold+Gold collisions is most likely due to the influence of a new state of matter being produced, such as a Quark-Gluon Plasma.

There are more protons than pions at high transverse momentum: PHENIX can identify different types of particles, including lighter pions and heavier protons and kaons. PHENIX finds that there are more protons than pions at high transverse momentum. This may indicate that the physical processes that produce these particles are occurring differently in heavy ion collisions. Also, there are almost as many anti-protons as protons, which is another indication that conditions are favorable for the production of a Quark-Gluon Plasma.

A large number of produced particles are observed: PHENIX finds that there are additional particles produced in collisions of Gold ions than what would be expected from measurements of simpler collisions of protons. This fact hints that conditions may be favorable for the production of a Quark-Gluon Plasma. Also, more particles are produced when the ions collide head on.

A large total amount of transverse energy production is observed: PHENIX can measure the amount of energy that comes out sideways, or transverse, to the direction the ions were originally travelling. Like the number of produced particles, the total transverse energy is largest when the ions collide head on. From this measurement, PHENIX estimates that the density of energy in the center of the collision is about 30 times that of a normal nucleus. This fact also hints that conditions may be favorable for Quark-Gluon Plasma production.

The source of produced particles is large and short-lived: Borrowing a technique from astronomy that has been applied to measure the radius of individuals stars, the size of the source volume where the particles are produced has been measured by PHENIX. The transverse size of the source appears to be much larger than the original size of the Gold nuclei, and lives for a very short time. The short life is contrary to what is expected from a Quark-Gluon Plasma and remains a mystery to be solved.

An electron signal above background is observed: PHENIX is unique at RHIC in that it can identify individual electrons coming from the collision, many of which are the result of decays of heavier particles within the collision. PHENIX measures a number of electrons that is above the expected background. The excess electrons are likely coming from decays of special particles with heavy charm quarks in them. Further study of these charmed particles will help us better understand if a Quark-Gluon Plasma has been formed.

Non-random fluctuations are observed, but they are likely due to the presence of jets: During a phase transition, it is typical to see fluctuations in some properties of the system. PHENIX has measured fluctuations in the charge and average transverse momentum of each collision. Thus far, PHENIX reports no large charge fluctuations that might be seen if there is a phase transition from a Quark-Gluon Plasma. PHENIX reports that there are excess fluctuations in transverse momentum, but they appear due to the presence of particles from jets. The behavior of the fluctuations is consistent with the jet suppression phenomenon mentioned previously.

The particles are flowing - a lot: PHENIX can measure how much the particles flow around in the collision. PHENIX observes a significant particle flow effect, which is expected when heavy ions collide. However, those high transverse momentum particles surprise again, and show a flow effect that is not yet understood and may be more evidence for the existence of a Quark-Gluon Plasma.


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 don't have to remind you of why I have taken this route to understand what is taking place as such proton proton collisions reveal some interesting perspectives.

Quark stars signal unstable universeBy William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

In orbit around Earth, a satellite called the Chandra X-ray Observatory surveys the universe for sources of X-rays, which come from hot, active places. Such places include neutron stars, the still energetic corpses of burnt out stars once more massive than the Sun. When such stars use up their hydrogen fuel they explode into bright supernova, then their cores collapse into an extremely heavy ball of neutrons enveloped in a thin atmosphere containing iron and other debris from the explosion. In the core of the dying star, extreme pressure breaks atoms down into protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and electrons combine into neutrons, and the remaining material is so heavy that one tablespoon of it weighs about four trillion pounds.

But they noticed something very odd?

A Black Hole Ate My Planet

In 1995, Paul Dixon, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, picketed Fermilab in Illinois because he feared that its Tevatron collider might trigger a quantum vacuum collapse. Then again in 1998, on a late night talk radio show, he warned that the collider could "blow the Universe to smithereens".

But particle physicists have this covered. In 1983, Martin Rees of Cambridge University and Piet Hut of the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, pointed out that cosmic rays (high-energy charged particles such as protons) have been smashing into things in our cosmos for aeons. Many of these collisions release energies hundreds of millions of times higher than anything RHIC can muster--and yet no disastrous vacuum collapse has occurred. The Universe is still here.

This argument also squashes any fears about black holes or strange matter. If it were possible for an accelerator to create such a doomsday object, a cosmic ray would have done so long ago. "We are very grateful for cosmic rays," says Jaffe.

Information about LHC :So You Want to Play Games?

LHC - THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER

So of course such contributions to involvement the general public in a style response screen saver thought bend towards the increase of computation abilities to digest?

In January of 2004, Ben Segal and François Grey of the IT Department were asked to plan an outreach event for CERN’s 50th anniversary that would allow people around the world to get an impression of the computational challenges facing the LHC. Ben and François got in touch with Dave Anderson, the Director of SETI@home, who was just beginning to test the new BOINC platform his team had developed. At the same time, a couple of Danish students got in touch with François, eager to find an exciting project for their Masters thesis. This was the beginning of LHC@home. Christian Søttrup and Jakob Pedersen worked furiously all spring and summer to get SixTrack and BOINC to function together. You can read their thesis , which describes the opportunities for combining public resource computing, such as LHC@home, with Grid computing like the LHC Computing Grid.

The LHC is a synchrotron. A synchrotron accelerates particles by having them travel around and around in a vacuum tube. The LHC will have two such tubes placed side by side so that the same kind of particles - protons - can be accelerated in opposite directions and then smashed into each other.

As one read previously throughout this thread and leading through Pierre Auger experiments and related links, I had come to the conclusion that the evidence for microstate blackhole hole procduction was happening all around us, from cosmic interactions. IN the risk assessment.org, this saids it is not of a concern or comparable?


A critical look at risk assessments for global catastrophesAdrian Kent

Speculative suggestions are occasionally made about ways in which new physics experiments could hypothetically bring about a catastrophe leading to the end of life on Earth. Some of these hypothetical catastrophes, including the “killer strangelet” scenario considered in this paper, would also lead to the destruction of the planet and wider catastrophic consequences. In any case, the proposed catastrophe mechanisms generally rely on speculation about hypothetical phenomena for which there is no evidence, but which at first sight do not contradict the known laws of physics. Sometimes, such pessimistic hypotheses can be countered by arguments which show that the existence of the catastrophe mechanism is highly improbable, either because closer analysis shows that the proposed mechanism does in fact contradict well established physical principles, or because its existence would imply effects which we should almost certainly have observed but have not.

Far be it that my visionary skills kick in, and from reading, I see such microstate as passing though all things around us, and yet, if such a gathering was to take such features and increase, what saids that such valuations might never have been collected at the core? What would be the trigger mechanism that would instigate gravitational collapse, has been a geometrical puzzle for me, as I move through this cyclical valuation of what began, and ends from such universes?

Has Speed of Light changed Recently?

You have to remember I am not as well educated as the rest of the leaque connected at Peter Woit's site. But how could one think anything less, then what perception can contribute, as less then what the educated mind might have thought of? If it did not have the scope enlisted by others in consideration cosmology might have expressed, then we might have reduced the value of reducitonism role in how we perceive the beginning of the cosmos?

So what Does Peter Woit say here? I am glad that the support(choir:) moved to Peter's cause for truth and enlightenment, is clarifying itself, instead of the ole rants that we had been witnessed too, in the past.

Understanding the clear disticnctions make's it much easier now, instead of what opportunities might have been past by? Of course I understood that he is quite happy with the life given, makes it all the more reason that the value of opinion will have direction(not hidden causes). Contributions by the the opinions generated, held to a educative process that we all would like to be part of.

Peter Woit:

In general, what I really care about and am willing to invest time in trying to carefully understand, are new physical ideas that explain something about particle theory, or new mathematical ideas that might somehow be useful in better understanding particle theory.

Strings /M theory moved to cosmological thinking because of where it had been?

Life, the cosmos and everything:

Lee Smolin stressed that it is only justifiable if one has a theory that independently predicts the existence of these universes, and that such a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable. He argued that most of the universes should have properties like our own and that this need not be equivalent to requiring the existence of observers.

Smolin's own approach invoked a form of natural selection. He argued that the formation of black holes might generate new universes in which the constants are slightly mutated. In this way, after many generations, the parameter distribution will peak around those values for which black-hole formation is maximized. This proposal involves very speculative physics, since we have no understanding of how the baby universes are born. However, it has the virtue of being testable since one can calculate how many black holes would form if the parameters were different.

So what are Lee Smolin's thoughts today, and one can see where the interactions might have, raised a claerer perception of what falsifiable is meant in context of today's reasonings. Has this changed from 2003?

Lee Smolin:

My impression, if I can say so, is that many cosmologists undervalue the positive successes of CNS. It EXPLAINS otherwise mysterious features of our universe such as the setting of the parameters to make carbon and oxygen abundent-not because of life but because of their role in cooling GMC’s. It also EXPLAINS the hierarchy problem and the scale of the weak interactions-because these can also be understood to be tuned to extremize black hole production. Further, it EXPLAINS two otherwise improbable features of glaxies: why the IMF for star formation is power law and why disk galaxies maintain a steady rate of massive star formation.

So while we are engaged in the thinking of what can be measured from the big bang till now( Sean Carroll has given us a positon to operate from), but having the Poor man's collider introspective, helps us to consider how we may see the developement of particle interaction, as Pierre Auger experiments have reminded us?

Since the COBE discovery, many ground and balloon-based experiments have shown the ripples peak at the degree scale. What CMB experimentalists do is take a power spectrum of the temperature maps, much as you would if you wanted to measure background noise. The angular wavenumber, called a multipole l, of the power spectrum is related to the inverse of the angular scale (l=100 is approximately 1 degree). Recent experiments, noteably the Boomerang and Maxima experiments, have show that the power spectrum exhibits a sharp peak of exactly the right form to be the ringing or acoustic phenomena long awaited by cosmologists:

Then how would we see such changes and views that might of held the mind to variances in the landscape, as hills and valleys, portrayed in our cosmo? Perception between the Earth and the Sun. What shall we say to these values in other places of the cosmo? Will we see the impression of the spacetime fabric much differently then we do with the fabric as we see it now? Some might not like this analogy, but it is useful, as all toys models are useful?

Had we forgotten Wayne Hu so early here, not to have thought before we let this all slip from our fingers, as some superfluid and how we got there, Whose previous existance we had not speculated(what about Dirac), yet we understand the push to the singularity do we not?

"How do you actually make a collapsing universe bounce back? No one ever had a good idea about that,” Albrecht said. “What these guys realized was that if they got their wish for an ekpyrotic universe, then they could have the universe bounce back."

Such gravitational collapse sets the stage for what was initiated from, yet, we would not entertain cyclical models, that would instigate geometrical propensities along side of physics procedures?

So what do we mean when I say that we have pushed the minds eye ever deeper into the world of the Gluonic phases, which we would like so much to validated from such "traversed paths" that such limitations might have then been projected into the cosmo for a better perspective of time? Langangrain valuations alongside of the cosmic string? Which view is better?



When I started to look at the idea of these xtra dimensions, and how these would be manifesting and the experimental attempts at defining such, I recognized Aldeberger with eotvos contributions here, that a few might have understood and seen?

Together now such a perspective might have formed now around perspectve glazes that we might now wonder indeed why such a path taken by Aldeberger might now have been seen in such fine measures?

The Shape of the UNiverse in Omega Values

Having walked through the curvature parameters, in the Friedmann equations while understanding the nature of the universe, I thought would have been very important from the geometrical valuations, that I have been trying to understand. That it might arise in a terminology called quantum geometry, seems a very hard thing to comprehend, yet thinking about CFT measure on the horizon(Bekenstein Bound) is telling us something about the space of the blackhole?

So people have these new ideas about quantum grvaity and some might have choosen monte carlo methods for examination in the regards of quantum gravity perceptive.

Plato:

Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

JUst as one might have asked Max Tegmark what the shape of the universe was, he might of quickly discounted John Baez's soccer ball? Yet little did we know, that such a push by Magueijo might have had some influences? How would you measure such inflationary models?


Plato said:

When I looked at Glast, it seemed a fine way in which to incorporate one more end of the "spectrum" to how we see the cosmo? That we had defined it over this range of possibilties? How could we move further from consideration then, and I fall short in how the probabilties of how we might percieve graviton exchange of information in the bulk could reveal more of that spectrum? A resonance curve?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

One of the ways that has intrigued my inquiring mind, is the way in which I could see how xtra-dimensions might have been allocated to the views of photon interaction? We know the ways in which calorimetric design helps us see how fine the views are encased in the way Onion people work?

I had recognized quite early as I was getting research material together of Smolin's support of Magueijo, had something to do with the way in which he was seeing VSL approaches to indicators of time valuations?

Again, this is quite hard to conclusive drawn understanding, in that such roads lead too, would have instantly said that (speed of light in a vacuum)C never changes? How many good teachers would have chastize their students, to have this held in contrast to todays way we do things when looking at Magueijo?

Magueijo started reading Einstein when he was 11, but he wanted to comprehend the theory using mathematics rather than words. So he read a book by Max Born, which explains relativity in the language of mathematics. He quotes Galileo as having said, "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics."

Let's look at what is being said from a fifth dimensional perspective, and tell me why this will not change the way we see? Why model comprehension has not sparked this foundational change in the way we look at the cosmos and the spacetrime fabric?

Decoherence

How to understand this quantum-to-classical transition linking two incompatible descriptions of reality is still a matter of debate among the various interpretations of quantum theory. In any case, one can probe the borderline between the classical and the quantum realm by performing interference experiments with particles of increasing complexity.

Of course I am cocnerned about the determinations of the paticle natures seen in a particular light. These constituent s are part an dparcel of a much larger view from increase entrophy( I always get these things a**backwards), and cooling temperatures?

Decoherence is relevant (or is claimed to be relevant) to a variety of questions ranging from the measurement problem to the arrow of time, and in particular to the question of whether and how the ‘classical world’ may emerge from quantum mechanics. This entry mainly deals with the role of decoherence in relation to the main problems and approaches in the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Of course I am paying attention and listening. :)Of course I want to find my way back to the classical world from where probabilistic valuations reigned. I was acting as a "gathering point" in my quest for a "philosophical design" (not to be confused with ID?). :) Okay, I understand this is not acceptable.

The difference between quantum and classical behaviour is exemplified by the famous “double-slit experiment”, in which photons are fired at a barrier containing two slits, and then allowed to fall on a screen opposite the barrier. Classical particles would pass through (at most) one slit at a time, but photons can pass through both simultaneously. The two waves associated with the photon passing through the two different slits fall in and out of phase with each other at different points on the screen — the phase of these waves being related to the total distance the photon travels from source to screen — so they interfere either constructively or destructively, producing a pattern of light and dark bands.

What motivated such cosmlogical design, as a crunching inevitable to have found the limitations of the energy having found itself turning back? So we do not see this right now and we speculate. this did ont take away from the isolated examples of unfoldment as a cyclcical process between energy and matter did it??

Oh for heaven's sake, where will my ramblings take me next? :)

Lubos Motl:

I would not promote overly technical lecture notes, especially not about things covered in many books. But the interpretation of quantum mechanics in general and decoherence in particular - a subject that belongs both to physics as well as advanced philosophy - is usually not given a sufficient amount of space in the textbooks

Those are strong words [shut up and calculate] for a layman to consider, when he is groping to trying to find his way.

Lecture 23 was pointed out by Lubos Motl in his article for consideration. More was considered from the list contained here.

If such energies were to be amongst the recognition of the quantum world, had we really been that separated from cosmological recognition of what constitued that beginning? Am I suppose to dismiss Weinberg in his first three minutes, for what might have been recognized in the first three seconds?? Remeber I am in the fifth dimension, where temeprature and entropic findings would have found a furthe rvalue to the discussion of what went this way and what that way. The entangling process is very profound.

So in looking back, we do not know where such a thing could begin? I think I understand that from what , although, if such proceses were recognized in the cyclcial nature of the cosmos why would we not entertain the rejuvenation of geometrical propensities to models inherent already in the universe? See the universe as a much "larger process" much different then the scope through which we might have treated each galaxy in it's rotations? Everett? Hmmm....

To map the "invisible" Universe of dark matter and gas expelled during the birth of galaxies: a large-aperture telescope for imaging and spectroscopy of optical and ultraviolet light.

To measure the motions of the hottest and coldest gas around black holes: a radio interferometer in space.

To see the birth of the first black holes and their effect on the formation of galaxies, and to probe the behavior of matter in extreme environments: a very large aperture arc-second X-ray imaging telescope.

To determine the nature and origin of the most energetic particles in the Universe today: a mission to track them through their collisions with the Earth.

I have been troubled indeed by the "orbital mapping" I speculated to the cosmological design, seen as "events" in that cosmo. By such happen stance, such relations seem to spark some wonder about the arrangement, to the fundamental library of that same orbital design. I made this mistake before, and I need to correct it now.

Slow down! "Antimatter?" "Pure energy?" What is this, Star Trek?

But you can see evidence for antimatter in this early bubble chamber photo. The magnetic field in this chamber makes negative particles curl left and positive particles curl right. Many electron-positron pairs appear as if from nowhere, but are in fact from photons, which don't leave a trail. Positrons (anti-electrons) behave just like the electrons but curl in the opposite way because they have the opposite charge. (One such electron-positron pair is highlighted.)

The collider ring as a boson, whose overall contention could have been seen in the total energy involved, and the dispensing to those extra dimensional perspectives within the "natural world" of our settings? Have I misunderstood the values of the Pierre Auger experiment to see better, then we had seen before, not to have seen a topological question about how one would interpret the sphere with one hole, as a donut? What values circles then?

Decoherence represents an extremely fast process for macroscopic objects, since these are interacting with many microscopic objects in their natural environment. The process explains why we tend not to observe quantum behaviour in everyday macroscopic objects since these exist in a bath of air molecules and photons. It also explains why we do see classical fields from the properties of the interaction between matter and radiation.

Angels/demons seem to make there way into view here? Yet in the world of Dirac might he seen the consequence of possible pathways in the construction of the matrix involved and intoduced the i of questionable directives as results in the arrangement of that same matrix?? Feynman took over for sure in his toy models.

Then of course I come across this statement previous and I am back to scratching my head. Oh boy!

You might imagine antimatter as a possible temporary storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than what you get back out of it. For antimatter the loss factors are so enormous that it will never be practical.

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

Hmmmm......more confusion again.:)



What value from such gravitonic perceptions from the modifications if events such as these above are not held to the dynamical nature of the spacetime fabric itself?

Rayleigh Scattering

Over top of this whole post, I have wrapped it in context as if the fifth dimension. It is being expresed as part of a larger understanding of how such grvatons in their congergations might have been percieved? Yet Lubos cautions this perspective. I don't understand why.

Aaron Bergman on Dec 10th, 2005 at 1:46 am

The S-matrix is contact with (hypothetical) experiments. Most of the things we compute in QFT are S-matrix elements. The fact that we’re not really living in a region with free |in> and |out> states doesn’t stop us from figuring out what happens in a collider.

Some now looking at the relation to what can be constitued to interactions between the nature of the Sun such relation woud have spelt opportunities of what John Ellis might have expressed in the Pierre Auger experiments? NON?

As I read about this particular subject of the S-matrix I choose this particluar subject to get my head around it, and still, might have been lacking in moving through this subject. But something triggered in my mind to a previous question raised, that I thought I would bring forward here.

Of course I am thinking about the calorimeters used in Glast and the cosmological depth, as well, in the LHC where the quantum nature is expressed as well. These cannot be taken together?

Gavin Polhemus on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 6:24 pm
When you look at a rainbow you see the arcs of color, often against a dark backdrop of clouds. You also see the grayish mist of the falling rain. Where does the mist appear brighter?

a) inside the rainbow
b) outside the rainbow
c) the brightness is the same inside and outside
d) it varies



While I am talking about "Heaven's ephemeral qualites" in the pictured link, there was also a link attached to it as well in that post. It would help explain this process in context of Gavin's question. I'm definitely listening, and the information is coming from various sources. You see this, as I bring those sources together here.

Lubos Motl:

String theory allows us to calculate the S-matrix (another example that we do call an "observable") for all particles in the spectrum which includes the scattering of gravitons. We don't have to insert our knowledge about the problematic "bulk" observables: string theory automatically tells us not only the right answers but also the right questions. "It is the S-matrix you should calculate, silly," she says. It also tells us what are the corresponding evolution observables for anti de Sitter space.

Someone may therefore convince you that the S-matrix is the only meaningful observable that has any physical meaning in a quantum theory of gravity. This sentence is both deep, if an appropriate interpretation is adopted, as well as discouraging.

What is most troubling then is that a simpe picture of the lensing that can occur in the the gravitational perspective, might have been enlisted in how we see this light travel through to the CSL lensing that is being spoken too?

Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies and their large-scale distribution

The cold dark matter model has become the leading theoretical paradigm for the formation of structure in the Universe. Together with the theory of cosmic inflation, this model makes a clear prediction for the initial conditions for structure formation and predicts that structures grow hierarchically through gravitational instability. Testing this model requires that the precise measurements delivered by galaxy surveys can be compared to robust and equally precise theoretical calculations. Here we present a novel framework for the quantitative physical interpretation of such surveys. This combines the largest simulation of the growth of dark matter structure ever carried out with new techniques for following the formation and evolution of the visible components. We show that baryon-induced features in the initial conditions of the Universe are reflected in distorted form in the low-redshift galaxy distribution, an effect that can be used to constrain the nature of dark energy with next generation surveys.

The poster shows a projected density field for a 15 Mpc/h thick slice of the redshift z=0 output. The overlaid panels zoom in by factors of 4 in each case, enlarging the regions indicated by the white squares. Yardsticks are included as well. The postscript file has been produced for A0 format. Beware of it's huge size!

Now Lubos mentions the bulk relation here, and I wonder why such a take on a gathering of graviton perceptions would not help to see Heaven's ephemeral qualites as consequences of the pathways this light can take?

Mine is a simple way in which to understand such graviton scattering which might have "some reasoning?" behind it that would have said the blackhole concentration of such a photon persepctive woud have held greater consequence to the blackhole position in the universe? non?

Rayleigh scattering using the S-matrix

For the example of sunlight shining on the atmosphere, the S-matrix predicts that shorter-wavelength light (blue end of the spectrum) will scatter at larger angles than longer-wavelength light (red end of the spectrum). And this is exactly what we see! Let me go through it. It helps to have a globe handy, perhaps using a pencil or straight piece of wire to simulate an incoming ray of sunlight; imagine a very thin layer over the surface which is the atmosphere. A small scattering angle means the light continues on nearly in the direction it started out in, while a large angle means close to perpendicular to the incoming direction.

Angels and Demons

Now how could such good thinking minds have not seen that the publics understandings might have been warped by the very underpinnings of good science men/woman, and all the issues become some fictional story for what evils and saints can do for us.



So was it some distant function of creation that we should not recognize the negative effect of all "good things" that will emerge from the actions of what is revealled to us in our "rainbows and aurora's," that we would not seem pleased as to the emissions have to say in the wave forms that surround such things?

Can we hope to use antimatter as a source of energy? Do you feel antimatter could power vehicles in the future, or would it just be used for major power sources?

There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy "source". Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature: we have to make every particle at the expense of much more energy than it can give back during annihilation.

You might imagine antimatter as a possible temporary storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than what you get back out of it. For antimatter the loss factors are so enormous that it will never be practical.

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

So while good thinking men and woman dance with the ideas of Einsteins geometrical propensities to answer thse functions, what spherical relation would have said, that for every sun that burns out, it will rejuvenate itself, by strict geometrical functions in anti-matter creation to bring forth this "new vision" of the world.

Create this wonderful unlimited resource of energies that exist around us now?

So again let's take this back to the Pierre Auger examination of what is taking place outside of the collider expeirments. While it is nice to have these controls, why were we not informed about the potentiality of what exists as you pursue your visons to the very beginnings of this universe? That this beginning would take place right next to you? Is this wrong that we not assign astronomical valuations to the very nature of our world now, as such interactions take place between the sun and earth? That in those compacted dimensions, such calculations would reveal the thinking of relative and mathematical entities, as signals of the events that can take place everyday around us as well.

Einstein was very revealling in what could be taken to a larger scale for what could split apart, so it is not so unlikely that ourvisions have been curtailled,just becuase we did not se the actions that could take plac ein a larger scenario?

So did Heisenberg see what was revealling towards these geometerical propensities, as events unfolded themselves?

Update:

if your foci is "string" enough, you might realize it is less than K=0 :)


All M.C. Escher works (c) 2001 Cordon Art BV - Baarn - the Netherlands. All rights reserved. www.mcescher.com

While some believe in positive curvatures they also understand that the inception could have a negative effect, yet it would not be "angel and demons" they espoused?

We are all better then that, right? There is a "greater whole" we are each part of? To further extend this empowerment beyond "good and evil in religion" think of sound then, and the related entry below. Maybe, it will have a certain resonance for you?

Music of the Spheres

About how the brain's neuronic vitalities of vison are enhanced, and related?

Wunderkammern

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.

Quantum Gravity: The Blackhole

Drawing Plane and Coordinate Systems More information is given here in Wiki.

There is no "distance" separating cosmological events, from the cubic centimeter in the corner of the room? I have to tell you why I see this, and what lead me to conclude such a thing. As I relay at bottom of page, this will be the subject of the next posted thread.

Imagine spreading such malicious comments as those in bold below?:)

Brian Greene

Sure. One of the strangest features of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we see directly in the world around us. That sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory. So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they're all around us, but they're small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and therefore are more difficult to detect.

I guess the link to source is good enough sometimes but not the page with which the url exists?:)

Sometimes all it takes is a concept to fuel the direction with which we might presume to deal with this world of the spacetime fabric. Brian Greene surmizes, and in a synoptic mode aligns our view for consideration, or a Lee Smolin, in developing Three roads, previews quantum gravity approaches for consideration. This "lineage", is developed in this sense.

The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene, is a good source for inspiration, on my "The Fifth Dimension, is the Spacetime Fabric." I am gone in a whisper, and advancement is placed for those who will exceed our limitation in how we percieve the world. This is the way it has always been. On and upward.:)

Good people like Gerard t'Hooft help direct our attention in a most appropriate way, even amidst the ramble of rejection of any theoretical position. Once the comment is established, then indeed we move ahead to wonder and draw the conclusions we do, with a whole page of such reasoning. This whole blog is filled with this central idea.

Imagine molecules in the corner cubic centimeter of the room( nice visulaization for a strting point), and all that exists in this space is contained, all, the information of the universe at large? Would I have triggered ideas in the notion that Pierre Auger seen something unusual in cosmic interactive features of our current earth, as a playing field for particle reductionism? In face of LHC and all the wonderful toys that have been produced to extend vision in a reductionistic world? You have to remember John Ellis here, is how I ascent to views in these two different ways.

Gerard t' Hooft:

The predominant force controlling large scale events in the Universe is the gravitational one. The physical and the mathematical nature of this force were put in an entirely new perspective by Albert Einstein. He noted that gravitation is rooted in geometric properties of space and time themselves. The equations he wrote down for this force show a remarkable resemblance with the gauge forces that control the sub-nuclear world as described in the previous paragraph, but there is one essential difference: if we investigate how individual sub-atomic particles would affect one another gravitationally, we find that the infinities are much worse, and renormalization fails here. Under normal circumstances, the gravitational force between sub-atomic particles is so weak that these difficulties are insignificant, but at extremely tiny distance scales, of the order of 10-33 cm, this force will become strong. We are tempted to believe that, at these tiny distance scales, the fabric of space and time is affected by quantum mechanical phenomena, but exactly how this happens is still very mysterious. One approach to this problem is to ask: under which circumstance is the gravitational force as strong as it ever can be? The answer to this is clear: at the horizon of a black hole. If we could understand the peculiar physical phenomena that one expects at the horizon of a black hole, and if we could find a meaningful description of its quantum mechanical laws, then perhaps this would open up new perspectives.

Smolins interpretive stance of the blackhole horizon( glast determnations fuel this venture into recognition of a discrete approach to measure,) in what is emitted on a cosmological scale. Others who paved the way for this horizon problem, take us back, Hawking, to the pre-established roads to wonder, where today does subject sit? How well in minds has this conclusion played out, that we have ventured forth in a wonderful way to approach this in such a theoretical fashion. That only "pure thought", mathematics, could have paved the way of where physics will continued on in physical interpretation.

I will introduce the idea of this "membrane analogy in the cubic centimentor:)" for further consideration, shortly after I attend to getting wood fuel for the winter months today.

Foundational Mathematics and Physics?

I reproduce the post written below to Peter's Quantum Gravity Commentary because that basis of determinations supported by John Baez, introduces a new line of thinking, that as a layman, forces me to think about mathematics and physics in their context.

John Baez:

In short: it may be less important to work on physics when there’s a high chance one is barking up the wrong tree and ones work will wind up in the dustbin of history, than to do math that’s clearly good.

This issue, of course, is part of what Peter’s blog is all about
But, I understand the disappointed feelings you are expressing, because physics is a wonderful quest. It’s very hard to give it up, even in times like ours when it’s hard to tell if real progress is being made..

As the thinking of General Relativity unfolded I could not help to consider the developement of geometry through this process. Now, we have interesting physics experiments in relation cosmological questioons. Applicability of the enviroment to particle reductionism and collisions( see Steven Gidding here on blackhole production, or Pierre Auger experiments spoken to by John Ellis) in a modern world.

Corections made here in post after seeing no post their on Peter Woit's site>

Interesting ways in which to measure gravitational deviations?

So do we say, no gravitational differences exist? Two avenues to exploration make themself known and also the question of how we might see landscape abilities spread through interactive phases at levels of energy detrminations that warrant such views relative to physics developement and mathematical forays? I am getting confused.


John Baez said: The existence, number, and character of supergravity theories depends strongly on the dimension of spacetime!

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-07/msg0033897.html

John, you point out the basis of Peter's Blog and assert the basis of math as a lone venture outside of physics. Might it be concievable, that math should have the basis of physics at it's core, as it extends itself in those abtract realms?

Ex:

IN Sylvester surfaces, while it seems these shapes "beautiful", it would have not made more sense if the Dynkin diagrams, a introduction by Nigel Hitchens, would help us see B Field manifestation as interesting outside of the physics, yet related?

In a QG atmosphere, such landscape applicabiltiy would help extend concept developement to math relations you speak of in different weeks?

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

The Calorimetric View?

The Title, might seem somewhat strange, but a issue has developed for me that I see raised in the scourge of other intellectuals, who disavow the extra dimension scenario.

So you have this view and you have this idea of missing energy? Where did it go and where did it come from? Pierre Auger linked previously and the Oh my god particle, raise this idea more in line with the vaster layout of this possibilty.

You see these things are happening around us now, and you needed a much comprehensive view of this compacted dynamcial world? So the methods seen for determination help us to see what is happening in relation not only to particle reductionistic views, but of the relationship happening with Earth and the Sun. Our other Cosmic relations, that move here in the vast network of spacetime contortions that signal informative views from earlier times


ATLAS and the LHC

Describing the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions in terms of gauge theories, the Standard Model (SM) of fundamental particles and their interactions has successfully explained and predicted many aspects of high-energy particle interactions. However, despite its tremendous successes, it remains theoretically unsatisfactory. The SM cannot answer what is the origin of particle masses, contains a large number of arbitrary parameters, and does not explain why there are so many types of quarks and leptons, among other questions. Perhaps as much as theoretical breakthroughs are needed in order to improve the SM, so are experimental observations on phenomena which can further constrain the SM or may reveal physics beyond it.

The question I raised was in looking at where the missing energy had gone? This is a important question, becuase it speaks to what energy gone in/out, as not being equal? I take it, that all particle reductionistic interpretations would have surmized it's energy value, and then, had something left over that is accoutable? How would you know it's missing?

Now I was looking a Cabi's ole post and from it, this lead me to look at the title of the connected paper for consideration.


A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS

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. See the Looking Glast


A Higgs Mechanism for Gravity, by Ingo Kirsch

In this paper we elaborate on the idea of an emergent spacetime which arises due to the dynamical breaking of diffeomorphism invariance in the early universe. In preparation for an explicit symmetry breaking scenario, we consider nonlinear realizations of the group of analytical diffeomorphisms which provide a unified description of spacetime structures. We find that gravitational fields, such as the affine connection, metric and coordinates, can all be interpreted as Goldstone fields of the diffeomorphism group. We then construct a Higgs mechanism for gravity in which an affine spacetime evolves into a Riemannian one by the condensation of a metric. The symmetry breaking potential is identical to that of hybrid inflation but with the non-inflaton scalar extended to a symmetric second rank tensor. This tensor is required for the realization of the metric as a Higgs field. We finally comment on the role of Goldstone coordinates as a dynamical fluid of reference.

Now I have not gone into in detail because I am somewhat slow and a bottom feeder trying very hard to gain perspective of the world these fellows like to deal with.

So the water symbolically speaking, sound manifest, with those inhabiting a dynamical world, speak about the nature of matter constitutions. That come from some state of existance? Here the idea, that it could emerse from nothing (where do the graviton perceptions reside?), is again hard to swallow becuase, "preconstitutional states," had allowed such manifestations to emerge from something? It just seemed logical? Non!

When you think this is going to be the end of it, I thought, I would recap, because I have given the containment(calorimetric) that such particle views, or early universe connections, might have brought forward in detectors methods?

This would have satisfied Peter Woit I am sure, but this view is far from over. The rules have defined a greater context to the issue that points us to the deeper issue of what Gerard 't Hooft might have said was comprehensible features of computerized information consistancies. This would have been far from the truth. Blackhole particle production, would have said hold on? To have this comprehensive view, you needed to include a completed version of the standard model? Without the grvaiton in cvomputerized versions you see where the picture is far completed and you se where the extra dimensiona would have certain features that would have incorporated graviton perceptions in the bulk?



The horizon would have been far from complete had the standard model not included this into the the energy in/out version. This would have been the thread(string) that connected the innner space of the blackhole with the particle production that would have dissipated/exploded in view? How would computerization meet this demand? LIGO?